Case 2301222/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Jervis v Peabody Trust and its subsidiaries — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301222/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms J Forecast, Mr Harrington-Roberts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Jervis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well-founded. It also found that it was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award for unfair dismissal to zero because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal.
The tribunal upheld two victimisation allegations, limited to the acts identified under the List of Issues as 3.3.30 and 3.3.31 and expressed as acts of victimisation under issue 7.4. All other claims of direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, direct sex discrimination, sex-related harassment and victimisation were dismissed.
The judgment was a liability decision. It stated that the case would be listed for a remedy hearing if the parties requested one within 28 days after the judgment was sent to them.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The liability judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim is well-founded and that compensatory awards for unfair dismissal are reduced to zero because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal. Remedy was to be listed separately if requested. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Only the victimisation allegations identified in the List of Issues as acts 3.3.30 and 3.3.31, expressed under issue 7.4, succeeded. The provided judgment text is truncated, so further detail on those acts is not available in the prompt. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | All other claims of direct race discrimination were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | All race-related harassment claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | All direct sex discrimination claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | All sex-related harassment claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 122 and 123 ERA
- Polkey reduction
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.