Case 1400451/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J McCall v The Sofa Library Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400451/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Members
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Ms S Maidment, Ms D England
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J McCall
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Bristol Employment Tribunal over 17 to 21 April 2023 before Employment Judge J Bax with members Ms S Maidment and Ms D England. The written record identifies the Claimant as Ms J McCall and the Respondents as The Sofa Library Limited and Mr M Gill.
In the judgment, the claims of wrongful dismissal and victimisation were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. The claim described as constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claims of direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, direct age discrimination, and harassment related to age. The written record does not set out reasons, stating that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in time.
No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.