Case 1601749/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Jenkins v Wastrel Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601749/2023
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- Ms M Walters, Ms R Hartwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Jenkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff by CVP on 25 to 27 September 2024 before Employment Judge C Sharp, sitting with Ms M Walters and Ms R Hartwell. The Tribunal gave its judgment orally and later recorded a unanimous decision dismissing all claims. It found that Miss H Jenkins was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010.
On that basis, the claim of discrimination arising from disability was found not well founded and dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed the claims of harassment relating to sex and direct sex discrimination, each as not well founded. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the claimant was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and found the claim of discrimination arising from disability was not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claim of harassment relating to sex was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of direct sex discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s6 Equality Act 2010
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.