Case 2401057/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Hennessy v Hills Panel Products Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401057/2021
- Decision date
- 11 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Dr H Vahramian, Mr A Clarke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Hennessy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester on 7 and 8 March 2022 before Employment Judge Leach, Dr H Vahramian and Mr A Clarke. The claimant, Miss A Hennessy, brought complaints under s57A Employment Rights Act 1996 about time off for dependants, indirect discrimination because of sex under s19 Equality Act 2010, and unfair (constructive) dismissal under sections 98, 99 and/or 104 ERA 1996.
The written judgment records that the claimant did not succeed in any of those complaints and that the claim was dismissed. The extracted text does not set out the tribunal's full factual findings or detailed reasoning, but it does record that the tribunal gave its reasons orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint under s57A Employment Rights Act 1996 for unreasonable failure to permit time off for dependants. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect discrimination complaint under s19 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Unfair (constructive) dismissal complaint under sections 98 and/or 99 and/or 104 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s57A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s19 Equality Act 2010
- sections 98, 99 and/or 104 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.