Case 2223288/2024 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2223288/2024
- Decision date
- 28 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Tribunal
- Panel members
- P Alleyne, D Shaw
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London Central in public from 13 to 21 October 2025 before Employment Judge P Klimov and lay members P Alleyne and D Shaw. Ms R Hewat appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Mr P Halliday, counsel.
In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal stated that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded. The claim therefore failed in full and was dismissed.
The extracted judgment does not set out separate findings on each complaint, does not record any legal tests applied, and does not identify any monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The extracted judgment states that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and dismissed, but it does not break out findings by individual complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The extracted judgment states that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and dismissed, but it does not break out findings by individual complaint. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment states that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and dismissed, but it does not break out findings by individual complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The extracted judgment states that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and dismissed, but it does not break out findings by individual complaint. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment states that all complaints in the claim were not well-founded and dismissed, but it does not break out findings by individual complaint. | 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.