Case 1400671/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Murphy v Langham Industries Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400671/2019
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Panel members
- Dr J Miller, Mrs J Killick
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol by CVP before Employment Judge Midgley with Dr J Miller and Mrs J Killick, dismissed all of the claimant's claims. The judgment records claims for automatic unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 ERA 1996, disability discrimination under sections 15, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, and breach of regulation 10 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
No written reasons are included in the extracted judgment because the reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were requested within the stated time limit. The written record therefore records only the formal outcome: each claim was found not well founded and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim for automatic unfair dismissal for asserting a statutory right under section 104 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claims under sections 15, 20 and 21 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim for breach of regulation 10 WTR 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.