Case 2302422/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Crawshay-Williams (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302422/2020
- Decision date
- 20 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms S Crawshay-Williams (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in London South on 20 September 2021 before Employment Judge Webster, the tribunal dealt with four applications. It refused the claimant's application for the respondent's response to be struck out, refused the application for specific disclosure, and refused the application for wasted costs for preparation for and conduct of the hearing.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's application to add a specific page of evidence to the bundle. Because no page number had been provided, the document was allowed by description as the Facebook page post by Ms Wileman that was 'liked' by Ms Blaney. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days. No monetary award or costs award was recorded.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claimant's application for the respondent's response to be struck out; refused. This was a preliminary application and did not determine the underlying claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claimant's application for specific disclosure; refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claimant's application to include a specific page of evidence in the bundle; upheld. The document was described as the Facebook page post by Ms Wileman that was 'liked' by Ms Blaney. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Claimant's application for wasted costs regarding preparation for and conduct of the hearing; refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.