Case 2302675/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Henley v Kings Hill Parish Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302675/2022
- Decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Members
- Panel members
- Ms. H Bharadia, Mr. D Shaw
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Henley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London South on 10-18 June 2024, the tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims after they were withdrawn, recording that the respondent had paid the sums owed. It also dismissed the detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 because they were out of time.
The claims for direct discrimination and harassment were likewise dismissed as out of time, and the tribunal held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The judgment records these claims as dismissed without a merits determination on the substantive allegations.
Under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that the respondent had not contravened the provision in relation to detriments i-iii, but had contravened it in relation to detriment iv. That meant the victimisation claim succeeded to that extent, and the tribunal listed a separate hearing to consider remedy.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant; the tribunal recorded that the respondent had paid the sum owed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant; the tribunal recorded that the respondent had paid the sum owed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 was dismissed because it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 was dismissed because it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The direct discrimination claim was dismissed because it was out of time and the tribunal held it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim was dismissed because it was out of time and the tribunal held it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Under section 27 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found no contravention in relation to detriments i-iii, but found a contravention in relation to detriment iv. A separate hearing was listed to consider remedy. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s47B ERA 1996
- s103A ERA 1996
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.