Case 1400482/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Piromalli v Charles Trent Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400482/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray AND
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr Flanagan, Mr Sleeth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Piromalli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sitting at Southampton on 3 to 11 March 2025, before Employment Judge Gray with members Mr Flanagan and Mr Sleeth, unanimously held that the Claimant's complaints of sexual harassment and harassment related to sex succeeded in respect of allegations 2a, 2b, 2d, 2f, 2g and 2i. It also held that it was just and equitable to extend time for those complaints.
The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's complaint of unfair constructive dismissal, her wrongful dismissal complaint, her direct sex discrimination complaint, and the remaining allegations of sexual harassment and harassment related to sex. The written judgment records that the parties then agreed terms as to remedy and that any amount payable by the Respondent to the Claimant was to be paid within 14 days, but no monetary figure is stated in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The complaints of sexual harassment and harassment related to sex succeeded in respect of allegations 2a, 2b, 2d, 2f, 2g and 2i; the Tribunal extended time for those complaints on a just and equitable basis. The remaining harassment allegations were dismissed. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The wrongful dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The direct sex discrimination complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.