Case 2303714/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs S Markwick v The Bevendean Community Pub Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 2303714/2022
Decision date: 27 February 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Macey
Venue: At London South
Panel members: Ms J Forecast, Mr A Peart

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs S Markwick

Respondent

The Bevendean Community Pub Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the hybrid hearing on 20 to 22 February 2024, the unanimous tribunal comprised Employment Judge Macey, Ms J Forecast and Mr A Peart. The judgment records three liability findings: the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded, meaning the respondent unfairly dismissed her.

The tribunal also found that the respondent subjected the claimant to direct age discrimination by dismissing her, in contravention of sections 13 and 39(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. In a further finding, it held that the respondent subjected the claimant to direct age discrimination by subjecting her to other detriments, in contravention of sections 13 and 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010.

The written record does not set out the tribunal’s full reasons or any remedy decision. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment extract.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and said this meant the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant.	Upheld	—	—
Age discrimination	Direct age discrimination by dismissal, found under sections 13 and 39(2)(b) Equality Act 2010.	Upheld	Age	—
Age discrimination	Direct age discrimination by subjecting the claimant to other detriments, found under sections 13 and 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010.	Upheld	Age	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.