Case 1809295/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Geldard v Brunswick Garage Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 1809295/2024
- Decision date
- 19 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms J Lancaster, Mr G Corbett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Geldard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Leeds (via CVP) with Employment Judge Singh and non-legal members Ms J Lancaster and Mr G Corbett, heard the claimant's claims of direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation against Brunswick Garage Ltd over six days in January 2026. The claimant was represented by a solicitor and the respondent by its owner.
The tribunal found that one allegation of direct sex discrimination (allegation 2.1e of the list of issues) was well-founded; the remaining direct sex discrimination allegations were withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. Four allegations of sexual harassment (3.1a, 3.1c, 3.1e and 3.1h) were also well-founded, while the remaining sexual harassment allegations and all victimisation claims were dismissed as not well-founded.
The claimant was awarded £6,500 in compensation, together with interest at 8% per annum amounting to £883.29 as at the date of judgment. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided as a matter of course.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct Sex Discrimination in respect of allegation 2.1e of the list of issues was well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Remaining Direct Sex Discrimination claims were withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Sexual harassment claims in respect of allegations 3.1a, 3.1c, 3.1e and 3.1h were well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Remaining sexual harassment claims were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | All victimisation claims were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,383
- across all upheld claims
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.