Case 2213439/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. S. Wilson v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — 2025
- Case reference
- 2213439/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Galbraith-Marten
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. S. Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central Employment Tribunal by video on 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 March 2025 before Employment Judge Galbraith-Marten sitting alone. The tribunal recorded that Ms S. Wilson brought claims of constructive unfair dismissal, direct sex discrimination, direct religious discrimination, direct disability discrimination, harassment related to sex, unlawful deduction from wages, and breach of contract against the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
The judgment states that each claim was not well founded and was dismissed. No claim succeeded, and the judgment records no liability findings in the claimant's favour.
The judgment does not record any monetary award or any split of remedy between claims. It was sent to the parties on 12 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim of constructive unfair dismissal and says it was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claims were found not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religious discrimination claims were found not well founded. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination claim was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim was described as harassment related to sex and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction from wages claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was not well founded. | 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.