Case 1602976/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms R Gibbins v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board — 2024

Case reference: 1602976/2023
Decision date: 30 December 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Harfield
Panel members: Mr M Vine, Mrs M Humphries

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms R Gibbins

Respondent

Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Claimant, a nurse employed by the Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board, brought complaints of direct sex discrimination, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, harassment related to sex, and indirect sex discrimination, principally arising from arrangements (or the absence of arrangements) for her to express breast milk on her returns to work in 2021 and 2023. The tribunal (Employment Judge R Harfield sitting with Mr M Vine and Mrs M Humphries) heard the matter over six days in September 2024 with a further deliberation day in chambers on 25 October 2024.

The tribunal upheld two specific allegations of harassment related to sex, namely those set out at paragraphs 4.1.12 and 4.1.20 of the agreed List of Issues. All remaining allegations of harassment related to sex, and the complaints of direct sex discrimination, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and indirect sex discrimination, were dismissed, either on their merits or because they had been presented outside the statutory time limit.

The judgment addresses the legal framework for sex discrimination in cases involving breastfeeding, noting that the Respondent expressly conceded that the Claimant could bring a direct sex discrimination complaint as a breastfeeding woman outside the protected period defined in section 18, notwithstanding section 13(7) of the Equality Act 2010 (which was subsequently repealed with effect from 1 January 2024 and without retrospective effect). The successful complaints were listed for a separate remedy hearing, and no quantum is determined in this liability judgment.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This 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	Two specific allegations of harassment related to sex (paragraphs 4.1.12 and 4.1.20 of the List of Issues) succeeded and were upheld. The successful complaints were listed for a separate remedy hearing, so no remedy figure is contained in this liability judgment.	Upheld	Sex	—
Harassment	The remaining allegations of harassment related to sex (other than those at 4.1.12 and 4.1.20) did not succeed either on their merits or because they were presented out of time, and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	Complaints of direct sex discrimination (including by reference to breastfeeding) did not succeed on their merits or were out of time, and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	Complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination did not succeed on their merits or were out of time, and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Pregnancy and maternity	—
Sex discrimination	Complaints of indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 did not succeed on their merits or were out of time, and were dismissed. Recorded as a separate claim because the locked taxonomy does not distinguish direct from indirect sex discrimination.

Legal tests applied

10 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.