Case 2304702/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Francis-Lyons v Pure Gym Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304702/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Ms Carter, Mr Cann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Francis-Lyons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Croydon, Employment Judge Leith sat with Ms Carter and Mr Cann and heard Miss K Francis-Lyons' claims against Pure Gym Limited on 3, 4 and 5 March 2025. The judgment record states that the complaints of protected disclosure detriment, constructive automatically unfair dismissal, constructive unfair dismissal, indirect sex and disability discrimination, harassment related to sex, age and disability, victimisation, and discriminatory constructive dismissal all failed and were dismissed.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No further findings or remedy figures are recorded in the extracted text, and no monetary award is stated in the public judgment record provided.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive automatically unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.