Case 1402239/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Galvani v Mr A Walters T/A The Crown Inn — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402239/2020
- Decision date
- 17 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Panel members
- Mr H Patel, Mrs L Eden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Galvani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Bristol by hybrid hearing on 9 and 10 August 2021 before Employment Judge Midgley, with Mr H Patel and Mrs L Eden. The claimant, Miss K Galvani, appeared in person and the respondent, Mr A Walters T/A The Crown Inn, also appeared in person.
The written judgment records a unanimous decision that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. No separate factual findings, liability analysis, or remedy assessment are set out in the short written record provided.
The record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's notice. On the face of the written decision, there was no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The written record states that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. The record does not set out separate factual findings for each claim. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written record states that the claimant's claims were not well founded and were dismissed. The record does not set out separate factual findings for each claim. | Dismissed | 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.
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.