Case 2304964/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Mettle v HCRG Care Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304964/2022
- Decision date
- 19 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
- Panel members
- Ms Y Batchelor, Mr S Sheath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Mettle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case numbers 2304964/2022 and 2300837/2023 were heard at London South (Croydon) via CVP from 15 April 2024 to 19 April 2024 before Employment Judge Wright, sitting with Ms Y Batchelor and Mr S Sheath. The claimant was Miss M Mettle and the respondent was HCRG Care Limited.
In the unanimous judgment dated 19 April 2024, the tribunal held that the claims of unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010 and breach of contract were not well-founded, failed and were dismissed. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic relied on for the Equality Act claim or set out any separate reasoning beyond the dismissal.
No monetary award is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers to 'unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010' without naming a protected characteristic in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.