Case 1600849/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Clarke v Aneurin Bevan University Health Board — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600849/2022
- Decision date
- 23 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howden-Evans Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Howells, Tribunal Member Fryer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Cardiff on 1 to 4 August 2023 before Employment Judge Howden-Evans with Tribunal Members Howells and Fryer. The written judgment records three claims: indirect sex discrimination under s19 Equality Act 2010, detrimental treatment following flexible working request(s) under s47E Employment Rights Act 1996, and constructive unfair dismissal under s95 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that each of those claims was not well founded and dismissed them. The record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records a claim of indirect sex discrimination under s19 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Flexible working | The judgment records a claim of detrimental treatment following flexible working request(s) under s47E Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records a claim of constructive unfair dismissal under s95 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s19 Equality Act 2010
- s47E Employment Rights Act 1996
- s95 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.