Case 2300933/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms J Gill v BDW Trading Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2300933/2022
Decision date: 12 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Burge
Venue: London South
Panel members: Ms C Oldfield, Ms S Dengate

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms J Gill

Respondent

BDW Trading Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge Burge with Ms C Oldfield and Ms S Dengate as lay members, heard the case at London South on 9 to 12 September 2024. The judgment records that the claimant, Ms J Gill, was in person and the respondent, BDW Trading Ltd, was represented by counsel. The tribunal disposed of the victimisation complaint as dismissed upon withdrawal, and it dismissed the direct sex discrimination complaints.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Victimisation	The judgment records that the claimant's complaint of victimisation was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	Direct sex discrimination complaints failed and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	Indirect sex discrimination complaints about being required to work two days or more in the office between August and October 2021, and about being required to work excessive hours outside office hours on 7 October 2021, failed and were dismissed.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Sex discrimination	Indirect sex discrimination complaint about being required to work five days a week in the office/on site with no prior notice from October 2021 succeeded.	Upheld	Sex	—

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.

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.