in person For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 2204854/2023
Decision date: 7 August 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Tribunal Member S Hearn, Tribunal Member R Pell

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal unanimously found that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded. The claim failed and was dismissed.

The Tribunal also found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, that the claimant had acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the proceedings, and that after evidence concluded on 25 July 2024 she had acted vexatiously in the conduct of the proceedings. The claimant was ordered to pay 6000 pounds to the First Respondent in respect of legal costs.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	The judgment states that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and were dismissed. The age discrimination classification comes from the gov.uk listing category in the prompt; the short judgment text does not set out individual complaint details.	Dismissed	Age	—
Sex discrimination	The judgment states that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and were dismissed. The sex discrimination classification comes from the gov.uk listing category in the prompt; the short judgment text does not set out individual complaint details.	Dismissed	Sex	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.