Case 2217828/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Silvia de Mentaberry v Ground Truth Intelligence Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217828/2024
- Decision date
- 12 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Appearances
Parties
4 namedMrs Silvia de Mentaberry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe 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 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.