Case 2214552/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Caister-Softley v Metka-EGN Limited Heard: by CVP in London Central — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214552/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Caister-Softley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard by Employment Judge Codd by CVP in London Central on 6 September 2024. The claimant was Mrs G Caister-Softley and the respondent was Metka-EGN Limited. No lay members are identified in the judgment.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it, citing sections 108 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment does not record a merits determination on the dismissal complaint.
The Tribunal also dismissed the sex discrimination claim because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment contains no award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim pursuant to sections 108 and 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
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.