Case 2214545/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N McGrath v Calzedonia Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214545/2023
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms A Brosnan, Ms M Pilfold
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N McGrath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Singh sitting with Ms A Brosnan and Ms M Pilfold heard Ms N McGrath's claims against Calzedonia Ltd on 5 to 7 June 2024. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the Claimant did not have the requisite service to bring that claim.
The tribunal also recorded that the direct race discrimination claim was not well founded and was dismissed. The judgment does not set out written reasons beyond the brief formal record, and notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The wrongful dismissal claim was found well founded. The tribunal awarded the Claimant £461.55 gross. No separate breakdown of the award was given in the written judgment record.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Claimant did not have the requisite service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was pleaded as direct race discrimination and was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim was found well founded and the Claimant was awarded £461.55 gross. | Upheld | — | £462 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £462
- 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.