Case 1800856/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Belize Harrison v Lloyds Bank plc and 3 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800856/2022
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Miss Belize Harrison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard by CVP on 26 April 2022, the Tribunal recorded withdrawals of claims. The claims against the second and third respondents, Alexander Mann Solutions Limited and Giant Precision Services Limited, were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The Tribunal also dismissed upon withdrawal the complaints of indirect disability discrimination, discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability, equal pay, and detrimental treatment as a fixed term employee. No remedy or monetary award was addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of indirect disability discrimination dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination because of something arising in consequence of disability dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Equal pay | Equal pay complaint dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | Complaint of detrimental treatment as a fixed term employee dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not specify the claim types for this respondent-specific dismissal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.