Case 1601404/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Owen v Thomas and Smith Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601404/2018
- Decision date
- 5 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Owen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Beard determined the case in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent, Thomas and Smith Ltd, and recorded that there was sufficient material before the tribunal to make a proper determination. The judgment was made under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's disability discrimination, breach of contract, wages, and sex discrimination claims on liability only. The extracted judgment does not contain findings setting out the underlying factual reasoning for each claim beyond the Rule 21 determination, and it does not record any remedy hearing or monetary award.
The decision was sent to the parties on 5 February 2019. No lay members are listed, and the judgment does not identify any legal test beyond the tribunal's use of Rule 21.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment says the disability discrimination claim was upheld on liability only. It was made in the absence of an ET3 response form from the respondent under Rule 21. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was upheld on liability only. No separate monetary award is recorded in the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the wages claim was upheld on liability only. The text does not split out any award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination claim was upheld on liability only. The judgment does not give further factual detail. | Upheld | Sex | — |
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.