Case 2300631/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Keating v WH Smith Retail Holdings Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300631/2019
- Decision date
- 4 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms Fellows, Mr Matharu
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Keating
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability hearing in London South via CVP on 3 and 4 June 2021, before Employment Judge Khalil sitting with Ms Fellows and Mr Matharu, the tribunal upheld both claims brought by Ms J Keating against WH Smith Retail Holdings Ltd. The judgment records that the claim for indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded. It also records that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded.
The written judgment does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasons, stating instead that reasons were given at the time and written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was determined in the judgment: the tribunal encouraged the parties to resolve remedy privately, and if that was not possible, to request a remedy hearing. The judgment therefore records liability only and leaves the monetary consequences to be dealt with separately.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim for indirect sex discrimination under s.19 Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal under s.94/95 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeds. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.94/95 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.