Case 2215264/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Radiance Property Services — 2023
- Case reference
- 2215264/2023
- Decision date
- 22 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to present a response within the Rule 16 time limit, and its application for an extension of time under Rule 20 was refused at the preliminary hearing on 22 December 2023. Employment Judge Klimov then decided that all liability issues could properly be determined without a hearing and issued judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of indirect sex discrimination, unfavourable treatment during her protected period because of pregnancy, unfavourable treatment because she exercised her right to take maternity leave, victimisation, and constructive unfair dismissal were all well-founded. The sex discrimination complaint was brought under section 19(1) Equality Act 2010, the pregnancy-related complaints under sections 18(2)(a) and 18(4), the victimisation complaint under section 27(1), and the dismissal complaint under section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment did not quantify compensation. Instead, it directed that the respondent pay compensation in respect of the upheld complaints, with the amount to be determined at a remedy hearing listed for 23 February 2024 if the parties did not agree the figure beforehand. The respondent was allowed to take part in that remedy hearing by giving written and oral evidence, cross-examining the claimant and her witnesses, and making legal submissions.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of indirect sex discrimination well-founded under section 19(1) Equality Act 2010. No compensation amount was set in this judgment; compensation was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of unfavourable treatment during the protected period because of pregnancy well-founded under section 18(2)(a) Equality Act 2010. No compensation amount was set in this judgment; compensation was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of unfavourable treatment because the claimant exercised her right to take maternity leave well-founded under section 18(4) Equality Act 2010. No compensation amount was set in this judgment; compensation was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found the victimisation complaint well-founded under section 27(1) Equality Act 2010. No compensation amount was set in this judgment; compensation was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the constructive unfair dismissal complaint well-founded within the meaning of section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. No compensation amount was set in this judgment; compensation was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 16 ET Rules
- Rule 20 ET Rules
- Rule 21 ET Rules
- section 19(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 18(2)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 18(4) Equality Act 2010
- section 27(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.