Case 1802252/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Made To Order Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802252/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Y Fisher, K Lannaman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSarah Earl brought proceedings against Made To Order Limited. The judgment records that the hearing took place at Leeds by CVP video conferencing on 25, 26 and 27 January 2022 before Employment Judge Lancaster sitting with members Y Fisher and K Lannaman, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms I Ferber, counsel.
The extracted judgment text states only: 'The claim is dismissed.' No separate reasons, findings, or legal analysis are set out in the text supplied, and no monetary award is recorded. On the material provided, the claims identified from the case listing as disability discrimination, whistleblowing, and unfair dismissal were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The supplied judgment text does not separate findings by head of claim; it records only that 'The claim is dismissed'. The disability discrimination head is inferred from the case listing supplied in the prompt. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The supplied judgment text does not separate findings by head of claim; it records only that 'The claim is dismissed'. This head is inferred from the case listing supplied in the prompt. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The supplied judgment text does not separate findings by head of claim; it records only that 'The claim is dismissed'. This head is inferred from the case listing supplied in the prompt. | 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.
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.