Case 1603346/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Bennett (First Claimant) Ms L Moilanen (Second Claimant) v Sharief Healthcare Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1603346/2025
- Decision date
- 8 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Bennett (First Claimant) Ms L Moilanen (Second Claimant)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a hearing at Cardiff on 4–7 August 2026, Employment Judge Russell found that Ms L Bennett’s unfair dismissal complaint against Sharief Healthcare Limited was well-founded. The tribunal held that Ms Bennett, the first claimant, had been unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also upheld both Ms Bennett’s and Ms L Moilanen’s complaint of harassment related to sexual orientation. It dismissed their complaint of direct sexual orientation discrimination, which they had brought in the alternative to harassment and based on the same acts.
Full reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment does not set out the underlying factual findings or detailed reasoning and records no monetary award or remedy calculation.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This complaint concerned the first claimant, Ms L Bennett. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | The complaint succeeded for both Ms L Bennett and Ms L Moilanen. | Upheld | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Both claimants brought direct sexual orientation discrimination complaints in the alternative to harassment, relying on the same acts. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
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.