Case 1600873/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs F Newnes v Go2 Drivers Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600873/2021
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Panel members
- Mr P Bradney, Ms C Lovell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs F Newnes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Cardiff by CVP on 24 and 25 May 2022 before Employment Judge C Sharp with Mr P Bradney and Ms C Lovell, gave a unanimous judgment on three claims brought by Mrs F Newnes against Go2 Drivers Ltd. The written judgment records that the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s harassment claim, which was pleaded as harassment related to sex. The written record does not set out the tribunal’s reasons, stating instead that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons were not provided in the judgment.
The claimant succeeded on her unauthorised deduction from wages claim. The tribunal held that claim to be well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £468.70. No separate breakdown of compensation, interest, or other remedy components is provided in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states the claim was for constructive unfair dismissal and that it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states this was a claim for harassment related to sex and that it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the unauthorised deduction from wages claim was well-founded and that the respondent was ordered to pay £468.70. | Upheld | — | £469 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £469
- across all upheld claims
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.