Case 2301510/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S. Lougheed v Maxident Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301510/2019
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. R. Smith
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms A. Boyce, Mr C. Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S. Lougheed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Ms S. Lougheed's claims against Maxident Ltd at London South on 13 to 15 October 2021 before Employment Judge T. R. Smith, with Ms A. Boyce and Mr C. Rogers sitting as the tribunal members. In the written judgment, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed. The complaint of direct sex discrimination was likewise found not well founded and dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons, stating instead that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written record states that the complaint was 'not well founded and is dismissed'. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, but no written reasons are included in the record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The written record states that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was 'not well founded and is dismissed'. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, but no written reasons are included in the record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written record states that the complaint of direct sex discrimination was 'not well founded and is dismissed'. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, but no written reasons are included in the record. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.