Case 2306005/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Roberts v CPJ Field Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306005/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins Members
- Panel members
- Hilary Carter, Nigel Westwood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Roberts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a hearing at London South from 7 to 11 July 2025, the tribunal unanimously found that Miss M Roberts's claims against CPJ Field Ltd were not well founded and failed. These comprised detriment following a qualifying disclosure, direct race discrimination, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to race and unlawful deductions. The tribunal held that the claims were presented in time, noting that the respondent had raised no issue about time limits.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment records the outcomes without setting out the underlying factual findings or reasons why each claim failed. It records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claims of detriment following a qualifying disclosure under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 13 of the Equalities Act 2010
- Section 26 of the Equalities Act 2010
- Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.