Case 1402320/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C. Brooke-Ward (Counsel) v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402320/2022
- Decision date
- 13 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Mr I Ley, Mr J Ruddick
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss C. Brooke-Ward (Counsel)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Exeter on 13 to 17 and 20 to 24 November 2023 before Employment Judge Smail with lay members Mr I Ley and Mr J Ruddick. The Claimant was represented by Miss C. Brooke-Ward and the Respondent by Mr O. James.
The judgment states that the Claimant's claims fail and are dismissed. On the information in the extracted text, the tribunal did not publish its substantive reasons in the judgment itself and recorded that written reasons had been requested and would follow.
Accordingly, the extracted record shows dismissed claims for disability discrimination and sex discrimination, with no monetary award recorded in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The short judgment records that the claim failed and was dismissed, but it does not set out the tribunal's reasons. Written reasons were asked for and were to follow. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The short judgment records that the claim failed and was dismissed, but it does not set out the tribunal's reasons. Written reasons were asked for and were to follow. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.