Case 2301157/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Daley v Goldsmiths, University of London — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301157/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
- Panel members
- Ms E Whittam, Mr C Tansley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Daley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Goldsmiths, University of London from 30 January 2017 until 5 January 2023. She brought complaints including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, and was later given leave to add breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from wages complaints.
The Tribunal unanimously dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint, finding that it was not well-founded and that the claimant was fairly dismissed. It also dismissed the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability.
The Tribunal dismissed the breach of contract and unauthorised deductions from wages complaints because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment identifies the complaint as unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and states that it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- Polkey
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
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.