Case 1601266/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O Stenstrom v Mr. C Jones and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601266/2022
- Decision date
- 24 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms L Bishop, Ms B Currie
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms O Stenstrom
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal's unanimous liability judgment found that the claimant's harassment claim in relation to sexual orientation and her victimisation claim were well-founded. It also found that the respondents failed to provide written employment particulars to the claimant. Those were the only claims recorded as successful in the judgment.
The tribunal dismissed the claims for wrongful dismissal, direct discrimination in relation to sexual orientation, and the complaint that the respondents unreasonably failed to comply with the applicable ACAS Code. The claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and holiday pay were dismissed upon withdrawal after settlement between the parties.
Remedy was not finally determined in the written judgment. By consent, the remedy hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to implement the agreed settlement terms, with liberty for either party to apply to restore the case for a remedy hearing only. The judgment recorded that if no such application was made by 4 p.m. on Friday 5 January 2024, the application and claim for a remedy would be dismissed on deemed withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment in relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation claim was found well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondents failed to provide written employment particulars to the claimant. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim for dismissal in breach of contract in relation to notice of termination was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination in relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Other | The complaint that the respondents unreasonably failed to comply with the applicable ACAS Code was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.