Case 2301744/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Shelly-Ann Hylton v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301744/2023
- Decision date
- 17 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Hilary Carter, Colin Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shelly-Ann Hylton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's harassment complaint on the grounds of race succeeded in relation to allegations 12a-12f in the list of issues, but was dismissed in relation to allegations 12g-12h. The complaint of direct race discrimination was dismissed.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested. No remedy figures are stated in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the complaint as constructive unfair dismissal and states it was well-founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of race was well-founded and succeeded with respect to allegations 12a-12f in the list of issues. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment on the grounds of race was not well-founded and was dismissed with respect to allegations 12g-12h in the list of issues. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.