Case 1807094/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Mr G Grant (HR and Finance Director) — 2021

Case reference: 1807094/2020
Decision date: 23 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Davies
Venue: CVP
Panel members: Mrs J Lee, Mr M Taj

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Mr G Grant (HR and Finance Director)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The hearing was held by CVP on 22 and 23 June 2021 before Employment Judge Davies, Mrs J Lee and Mr M Taj. The written judgment records that the complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (notice pay) and indirect sex discrimination were well-founded and succeeded.

The tribunal also recorded that the complaints of disability discrimination and breach of s57A Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well-founded and were dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so no remedy figures or fuller reasoning are set out in the judgment text provided.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Other	Breach of s57A Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Recorded from the judgment.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	Notice pay claim.	Upheld	—	—
Sex discrimination	Recorded in the judgment as indirect sex discrimination.	Upheld	Sex	—

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.