Case 1401343/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Murphy v ISG Construction Limited (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401343/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Murphy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Bristol on 2 May 2025, conducted in private by CVP before Employment Judge Midgley, the claimant attended in person and the respondent, ISG Construction Limited (In Administration), did not attend or have representation. The tribunal held that Ms S Murphy's claim of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded and ordered payment of a basic award of £5,250, a compensatory award of £5,600 for loss of earnings, and unpaid employer pension contributions of £289.
The tribunal also held that the claim of sex discrimination contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded and awarded £16,000 for injury to feelings. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not follow unless requested. The total monetary award recorded by the decision is £27,139.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The award comprised a basic award of £5,250, a compensatory award for loss of earnings of £5,600, and unpaid employer pension contributions of £289. | Upheld | — | £11,139 |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records an award of £16,000 for injury to feelings. | Upheld | Sex | £16,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,139
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,250
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,600
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.