Case 2201616/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Gray v Chelsea FC plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201616/2020
- Decision date
- 28 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Gray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs E Gray brought complaints against Chelsea FC PLC including sexual orientation discrimination, breach of contract, equal pay, arrears of pay and other payments. The judgment records that those complaints were dismissed on withdrawal, so no substantive findings were made on their merits in this decision.
The Tribunal also recorded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal or personal injury. Those matters were therefore struck out. The decision is a short case-management style judgment and does not contain any findings on liability, remedy, or legal tests beyond the jurisdiction point.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The complaint was listed as sexual orientation discrimination and was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sexual orientation | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Equal pay | The complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'arrears of pay and other payments' and dismisses those complaints on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The Tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the personal injury complaint and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.