Case 1806695/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Ms J Millward v Samuel Smith Old Brewery Tadcaster) Limited — 2020

Case reference: 1806695/2019
Decision date: 6 January 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Maidment

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms J Millward

Respondent

Samuel Smith Old Brewery Tadcaster) Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Maidment recorded that the claimant, Ms J Millward, succeeded in her claims of unfair dismissal, discriminatory dismissal, and disability-related harassment against Samuel Smith Old Brewery Tadcaster) Limited. The judgment states that the discriminatory dismissal was brought pursuant to sections 13 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010, and the harassment claim pursuant to section 26 of the same Act.

The judgment does not set out detailed reasons on liability in the extracted text provided. It simply states that the claims succeed, so the material finding is that the tribunal accepted all three claims on the basis pleaded.

No remedy was assessed in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the remedy would be determined at a Remedy Hearing listed for 10:00am on 9 April 2020 at the Sheffield Employment Tribunal.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Found to succeed under the Rule 21 judgment; remedy was left to a later hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	The judgment refers to a discriminatory dismissal pursuant to sections 13 and 15 of the Equality Act 2010; remedy was to be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	Disability	—
Harassment	Found to succeed as disability-related harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010; remedy was to be determined at a later hearing.	Upheld	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.