Case 2303244/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Cassandra Green v Olives Solicitors Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303244/2024
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson
- Panel members
- G Anderson, C Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Cassandra Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. It also found that the claimant did not cause or contribute to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, and that it would not be just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award on that basis.
The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, wrongful dismissal/notice pay, and breach of contract for allegations 10.2.1 and 10.2.3 of the List of Issues were well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010.
No monetary award was made in this judgment. The tribunal stated that any amounts payable for the successful claims, and whether any Polkey reduction would be made, would be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unauthorised deductions from wages complaint well-founded. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as the complaint of wrongful dismissal/notice pay and says it was well-founded. Remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the direct sex discrimination complaint under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal dismissed the harassment related to sex complaint under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal dismissed the victimisation complaint under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142
- section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 26 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 27 of the Equality Act 2010
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.