Case 2204661/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Thomas v Bibimoney Global Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204661/2022
- Decision date
- 22 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London Central Employment Tribunal, Ms D Thomas brought claims against Bibimoney Global Limited that included detriments following a protected disclosure, unfair dismissal, harassment, and direct age and sex discrimination. Employment Judge Singh heard the case on 19 to 22 June 2023 and gave judgment on 5 July 2023.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for detriments following a protected disclosure and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the harassment claim and the claims of direct age discrimination and direct sex discrimination were successful.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £5,500 for injury to feelings and interest. The extracted judgment does not provide a separate breakdown of that figure between the successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a claim for detriments following a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The extracted text does not specify which protected characteristic the harassment claim relied on. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,500
- 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.