Case 1800947/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Mr S Davis, solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800947/2023
- Decision date
- 12 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr D Wilks, Mr M Taj
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss W L Scott, brought complaints of direct sex discrimination, section 15 disability discrimination and victimisation, together with an unfair dismissal claim against Morrisons Data Services Limited. The case was heard in Leeds from 5 to 9 February 2024 before Employment Judge JM Wade, sitting with Mr D Wilks and Mr M Taj.
The tribunal dismissed the Equality Act complaints in full. The judgment records that the claimant’s complaints of direct sex discrimination, section 15 disability discrimination and victimisation were dismissed. No separate remedy was awarded on those claims.
The tribunal also dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, stating that it was not well founded. The extracted judgment does not set out the tribunal’s detailed reasoning, and it records that the reasons were given orally to the parties on 12 February 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states the complaint was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.