Case 1400826/2022 · Employment Tribunal
- MR G PROBERT (COUNSEL) FOR THE v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400826/2022
- Decision date
- 22 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- MR G PROBERT (COUNSEL) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal's unanimous judgment upheld the claimant's direct sex discrimination claim in part on issues 5.1.1 and 5.1.2(a), and upheld issue 5.1.2(b). It also upheld specified allegations of harassment on the ground of sex, including 6.1.1(a), 6.1.1(c), 6.1.1(d), 6.1.4, 6.1.7, 6.1.11 and 6.1.14.
Other sex-harassment allegations were dismissed, and some were withdrawn as duplicates. The tribunal upheld harassment on the ground of sexual orientation for issues 6.1.18 and 6.1.20, noting that 6.1.20 had been pleaded as sex-related harassment but succeeded as sexual-orientation harassment. It also upheld victimisation for issues 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4, 7.2.7, 7.2.8, 7.2.12 and 7.2.16, while dismissing other victimisation allegations and recording some withdrawals; it noted that 7.2.6 and 7.2.15 were upheld as harassment.
The tribunal upheld the constructive dismissal claim. The extracted judgment records liability findings only and does not set out any monetary remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Issues 7.2.13, 7.2.21 and 7.2.23-28 were withdrawn; 7.2.13 was withdrawn as an alternative to 5.1.2(b). | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive dismissal claim was upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Issues 5.1.1 and 5.1.2(a) were upheld in part; issue 5.1.2(b) was upheld. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Sex harassment allegations 6.1.1(a), 6.1.1(c), 6.1.1(d), 6.1.4, 6.1.7, 6.1.11 and 6.1.14 were upheld. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Sex harassment allegations 6.1.1(b), 6.1.1(e), 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.13 and 6.1.15 were dismissed; issue 6.1.20 was upheld as sexual orientation harassment, not sex harassment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Sex harassment allegations 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.12, 6.1.16 and 6.1.17 were withdrawn as duplicates. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.