Case 2217828/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs Silvia de Mentaberry v Ground Truth Intelligence Ltd and 2 others — 2025

Case reference: 2217828/2024
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Adkin Appearances

Indexed: 26 April 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Mrs Silvia de Mentaberry

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against the First Respondent was well-founded. The respondents had accepted that there was no procedure in relation to the dismissal, making it procedurally unfair, and the Tribunal also found that a significant part of the reason for the dismissal was the making of protected acts by the claimant (her allegations of sex discrimination), so it was not a substantively fair dismissal either.

Two specific allegations of victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded: threatening the claimant with redundancy if she refused to accept a reduced severance package (against the First and Third Respondents) and dismissing her (against the First Respondent only). All other allegations of victimisation, together with claims of direct sex discrimination, sex-related harassment, equal pay and breach of contract, were not well-founded and were dismissed. All claims against the Second Respondent were stayed for six months and thereafter stand dismissed.

Remedy was reserved to a further hearing. The published text was truncated; no quantified award appears in the available portion.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996 against the First Respondent succeeded; remedy to be considered separately. PDF was truncated.	Upheld	—	—
Victimisation	Victimisation under section 27 Equality Act 2010 succeeded against First and Third Respondents in relation to threatening to make the claimant redundant if she refused to accept the reduced severance package; and against First Respondent only in relation to dismissing the claimant. All other allegations of victimisation were dismissed.	Upheld	—	—
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination under sections 13 and 39 Equality Act 2010 not well-founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	Harassment relating to sex under sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010 not well-founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Equal pay	Equal pay under sections 64-71 Equality Act 2010 not well-founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	Breach of contract claim (unpaid commission and pension contributions) not well-founded and dismissed; the claimant agreed by email exchange dated 21 January 2021 to a variation removing the commission element of her remuneration.	Dismissed

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.