Case 2303455/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Berk v Shaw Trust Limited (The) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303455/2021
- Decision date
- 26 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Berk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on the respondent's application to strike out parts of the claim, not a final merits determination. The tribunal refused the application to strike out the claimant's direct age discrimination and direct sex discrimination claims, so those claims remained in the case.
The tribunal also considered whether certain matters could be relied on as part of the series of acts said to amount to a fundamental breach of contract. It refused to strike out reliance on the 18 February 2021 warning about "overstepping boundaries" and the March 2021 refusal to pay the claimant's outstanding annual leave balance, but allowed the strike-out application in relation to the allegation that the claimant had undergone an unreasonable number of consultations to vary her contractual terms.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | This was an interlocutory judgment on the respondent's strike-out application. The application to strike out the direct age discrimination claim was refused; the substantive claim was not finally determined. | Other | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | This was an interlocutory judgment on the respondent's strike-out application. The application to strike out the direct sex discrimination claim was refused; the substantive claim was not finally determined. | Other | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment addressed only whether certain alleged acts could be relied on as part of the series of acts said to amount to a fundamental breach of contract. Reliance on the February 2021 warning and the March 2021 annual leave payment issue was allowed to remain; reliance on the alleged unreasonable number of consultations to vary contract terms was struck out from that pleaded series. The substantive constructive dismissal claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
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.