Case 1405493/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Judith Drummond v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405493/2020
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Paul Housego
- Panel members
- Rachael Barrett, Ian Ley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Judith Drummond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was an Anglican Chaplain at Exeter Prison and was dismissed for gross misconduct relating to findings that she had bullied another chaplain. She said the process was prejudged, procedurally unfair, and connected with her sex, sexual orientation and religion or belief. The tribunal found the dismissal was a fair misconduct dismissal, that the respondent had a genuine belief based on reasonable grounds after a proper investigation, and that any procedural errors either did not make the dismissal unfair, made no difference, or were cured by the appeal.
The only Equality Act claim adjudicated was victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010, based on a grievance accepted to be a protected act. The tribunal found the grievance narrative did not refer to matters related to a protected characteristic and that the investigation and dismissal were not because of the grievance or any protected characteristic. It therefore dismissed both the unfair dismissal and victimisation claims.
The judgment states that other discrimination claims were discontinued or amendment was refused, and that all financial claims had been resolved. No monetary award was made in the visible judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, formed on reasonable grounds after a proper investigation, and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The prompt text is truncated in the middle, but the visible judgment sections state the claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal stated that other Equality Act claims had been discontinued or amendment refused, leaving only victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010. It found no connection between the grievance, the protected characteristics raised by the claimant, and the investigation or dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
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.