Case 1805822/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Lloyd, lay representative v Mr Holloway, barrister — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805822/2020
- Decision date
- 1 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr K Lannaman, Mr W Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Lloyd, lay representative
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Leeds hearing on 16 to 20 and 23 to 25 January 2023, Employment Judge Cox sat with Mr K Lannaman and Mr W Roberts. The tribunal recorded that the claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed by consent.
The tribunal then recorded that a number of allegations in paragraph 7 of the case management summary were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. These included the victimisation allegation in allegation 3 insofar as it was based on the claimant’s complaint of 13 December 2018, allegation 4 insofar as it related to PC Milligan, and parts of allegation 5, including the allegation that the backdated warning was victimisation, the allegation that the backdated warning was direct discrimination or victimisation by Inspector Ballard, the allegation that the attempt to expedite the claimant’s dismissal was victimisation, and allegation 6.
The order states that all remaining allegations failed and were dismissed. It notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The order expressly refers to victimisation allegations; some were withdrawn by the claimant and the remaining allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The GOV.UK decision page lists age discrimination as a jurisdiction code, but the order itself gives only the final disposal and does not break out separate reasoning on this head. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The GOV.UK decision page lists disability discrimination as a jurisdiction code, but the order itself gives only the final disposal and does not break out separate reasoning on this head. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The GOV.UK decision page lists unfair dismissal as a jurisdiction code; the order records only that the remaining allegations failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The GOV.UK decision page lists unlawful deduction from wages as a jurisdiction code; the order records only that the remaining allegations failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The GOV.UK decision page lists working time regulations as a jurisdiction code; the order records only that the remaining allegations failed and were 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.