Case 2217013/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Gleeson v Government Legal Department — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217013/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr S Hearn, Mr D Kendall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Gleeson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at London Central, sitting with Employment Judge Singh and lay members Mr S Hearn and Mr D Kendall, decided three liability issues arising from Mrs B Gleeson’s claims against the Government Legal Department. It found that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also found that the claim for indirect sex discrimination was well-founded and succeeded. In contrast, the claim described in the judgment as indirect associative disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The judgment states that there will be a remedy hearing to determine the amounts to be awarded to the claimant. No award figures are set out in the liability judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment refers to this as indirect sex discrimination. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to this as indirect associative disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.