Case 2203159/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Bronikowska v Consensys Systems UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203159/2020
- Decision date
- 27 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Sitting
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mrs J Griffiths, Mr F Benson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Bronikowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Bronikowska's claims were heard at London Central on 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 26 July 2021 before Employment Judge Horne sitting with non-legal members Mrs J Griffiths and Mr F Benson. The tribunal decided four issues: equal pay, whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, and victimisation. It found that the respondent did not breach the sex equality clause in the claimant's contract. Although the claimant's work was like Mr Minter's work, the difference between her terms and his terms was found to be due to a material factor, and reliance on that factor did not involve treating her less favourably because of sex.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The tribunal held that the respondent did not breach the sex equality clause. It accepted that the claimant's work was like Mr Minter's work, but found the difference in terms was due to a material factor and not because of sex. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made protected disclosures on 27 January 2020, but held that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was not that she had made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant did not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed because the sole or principal reason for dismissal was not her protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal expressly found that the respondent did not victimise the claimant. | 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.