Case 2216913/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216913/2024
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O Segal KC
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr P de Chaumont-Rambert, Mr D Shaw
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at London Central on 2 to 3 September 2025 before Employment Judge O Segal KC, with lay members Mr P de Chaumont-Rambert and Mr D Shaw. The parties were Ms A Brandt, appearing in person, and VL UK Services Ltd, represented by Mr M Smith, counsel.
The extracted judgment contains only the dispositive outcome. It states that the Claimant's claims are dismissed. No separate findings, reasoning, or remedy figures appear in the extracted text, so no further factual or legal basis can be reliably summarised from the material provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed, but it does not set out separate reasons for the disability discrimination claim in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed, but it does not set out separate reasons for the whistleblowing claim in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were dismissed, but it does not set out separate reasons for the unfair dismissal claim in the extracted text. | 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.