Case 2305373/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Jade Thomas v Sky In-Home Service Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305373/2021
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Members
- Venue
- London South ET
- Panel members
- S. Dengate, S. Huggins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Jade Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Jade Thomas brought claims for unfair dismissal, direct discrimination on the grounds of disability, direct discrimination on the grounds of sex, and discrimination arising from disability against Sky In-Home Service Limited. The tribunal sat at London South ET before Employment Judge G. King with members S. Dengate and S. Huggins, and heard the case over 30 January 2024 to 2 February 2024.
The judgment records that each claim was not well founded and was dismissed. The unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 failed, as did the direct discrimination claims under section 13 Equality Act 2010 in relation to disability and sex.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim described in the judgment as discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, but those reasons are not set out in the judgment text supplied here.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no remedy breakdown is provided. The judgment was dated 2 February 2024 and sent to the parties on 5 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Other | Claim recorded in the judgment as discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010. | 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.