Case 2205885/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Sonia Bryan v Travelodge Hotels Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 2205885/2018
Decision date: 7 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge A James Members
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Mrs Chavda, Mr Simon

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Sonia Bryan

Respondent

Travelodge Hotels Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal unanimously dismissed Ms Bryan's sexual harassment claims under section 26 Equality Act 2010, finding that they were not well founded.

The tribunal found that Travelodge Hotels Limited had breached Ms Bryan's contract of employment under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. It ordered the respondent to pay Ms Bryan £40.51. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the applicable time limit.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	The judgment describes these as sexual harassment claims under section 26 Equality Act 2010 and states they were not well founded.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Breach of contract	The judgment states the respondent breached Ms Bryan's contract of employment under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.	Upheld	—	£41

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £41; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

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.

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.