Case 1601355/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Joanne Chamberlain v Adra (Tai) Cyfyngedig — 2025
- Case reference
- 1601355/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bromige
- Venue
- Caernarfon ET
- Panel members
- Ms Y Neves, Ms R Hartwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Joanne Chamberlain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Caernarfon before Employment Judge J Bromige, with Ms Y Neves and Ms R Hartwell, and heard the case over 28, 29 and 30 April 2025, with further sittings in chambers and via CVP in July 2025. The claimant was Ms Joanne Chamberlain and the respondent was Adra (Tai) Cyfyngedig.
The unanimous judgment was that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. The complaint of being subjected to a detriment on the grounds of being a part-time worker was also not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal likewise dismissed the complaint of associative direct disability discrimination. The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the extracted public record contains the dispositive findings but not the tribunal's detailed reasoning.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records this as a complaint of associative direct disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.