Case 2200950/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hughes, Lay Representative For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200950/2019
- Decision date
- 9 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Hughes, Lay Representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 9 September 2019 before Employment Judge Norris sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s complaints of discrimination related to sex, sexual orientation, marriage and/or maternity, and of detriment and/or dismissal for the making of protected disclosures, were dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy was awarded because those complaints did not proceed to a merits determination.
The tribunal also recorded that the Claimant’s case of constructive unfair dismissal contrary to section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 would proceed to a full hearing. This judgment therefore resolved only the withdrawn complaints and did not determine the merits of the constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Dismissed on withdrawal at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment refers to discrimination related to marriage and/or maternity and records dismissal on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment refers to discrimination related to marriage and/or maternity and records dismissal on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to detriment and/or dismissal for making protected disclosures and records dismissal on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
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.