Case 2302692/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Thompson v Mr T Gillespie — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302692/2020
- Decision date
- 5 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins Members
- Venue
- London South at a hybrid hearing
- Panel members
- N Styles, S Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London South hybrid hearing on 14 and 15 September 2023, before Employment Judge Atkins with members N Styles and S Khan, the tribunal recorded that three claims were withdrawn by Ms Thompson: breach of contract/wrongful dismissal relating to unpaid notice pay, payment in lieu of holiday pay, and unauthorised deductions of arrears of pay. Those claims were therefore not determined on their merits.
The remaining claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the claim of direct discrimination on the ground of disability was not well founded and failed, and that the victimisation claim on the ground of having done a protected act was also not well founded and failed. The written record does not set out further reasons or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim described as breach of contract/wrongful dismissal relating to unpaid notice pay; withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for payment in lieu of holiday pay; withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions of arrears of pay; withdrawn by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination on the ground of disability; the tribunal held it was not well founded and failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim based on having done a protected act; the tribunal held it was not well founded and failed. | 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.