Case 2303215/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Emmanuel v Metroline Travel Limited Heard at LONDON SOUTH By CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303215/2021
- Decision date
- 7 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Cox Dated
- Venue
- LONDON SOUTH By CVP
- Panel members
- Carol Wickersham, Colin Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Emmanuel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss S Emmanuel, brought a complaint of indirect sex discrimination against Metroline Travel Limited. The case was heard at London South by CVP on 5-7 March 2024 before Employment Judge N Cox, sitting with tribunal members Carol Wickersham and Colin Rogers.
The tribunal’s unanimous judgment was that the complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal’s detailed reasons, because it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
No monetary remedy was awarded in the written judgment record. The decision notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The written record states that the complaint of indirect sex discrimination was dismissed. It also records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.