Case 1806618/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Bambridge v Benton Brothers (Transport) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806618/2021
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Armstrong Tribunal
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- H Brown, J Rhodes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Bambridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Leeds, sitting remotely by CVP on 18 to 21 July 2022 before Employment Judge K Armstrong with tribunal members H Brown and J Rhodes, dismissed the claimant's claim of automatically unfair (constructive) dismissal on the grounds of a protected disclosure. It also dismissed the claimant's protected-disclosure detriment claim.
The claimant's claim of harassment related to sex was dismissed. By contrast, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim of direct sex discrimination succeeded in part.
The judgment states that the direct sex discrimination claim was listed for a separate remedy hearing on 2 November 2022, with separate directions and a notice of hearing to follow. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair (constructive) dismissal on the grounds of a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment on the grounds of a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination succeeded in part and was listed for a remedy hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
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.