Case 1807045/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Effiong (lay representative) For the v Ms K Hindmarch (Solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1807045/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson
- Panel members
- Mrs L Anderson-Coe, Mr D Fields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Effiong (lay representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis judgment was heard by CVP on 12 to 15 July 2021 before Employment Judge Rogerson, sitting with Mrs L Anderson-Coe and Mr D Fields. The claimant was represented by Mr A Effiong and the respondents by Ms K Hindmarch.
The tribunal recorded that allegations 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5, said to be complaints under section 18 Equality Act 2010, and allegations 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4, said to be complaints under section 27 Equality Act 2010, were withdrawn and dismissed. The remaining complaints of unfavourable or detrimental treatment under sections 18 and 27 failed and were dismissed.
The complaint of unfair dismissal also failed and was dismissed. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records that allegations 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 making complaints under section 18 Equality Act 2010 were withdrawn and dismissed; all other complaints under section 18 failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that allegations 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 making complaints under section 27 Equality Act 2010 were withdrawn and dismissed; all other complaints under section 27 failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. | 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.