Case 2401328/2024 · Employment Tribunal
D Bagnall v Bury College — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401328/2024
- Decision date
- 10 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Malik
- Venue
- Manchester ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
D Bagnall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis case was determined at a preliminary hearing at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 29 January 2025 before Employment Judge Malik sitting alone. The judgment records two discrimination claims brought by D Bagnall against Bury College.
The tribunal struck out the sex discrimination claim because it found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. No further reasons are given in the written record because the judgment notes that reasons were given orally and written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The disability discrimination claim was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment does not record any monetary award, and no remedies were determined in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | At the preliminary hearing on 29 January 2025, the tribunal held the sex discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment records that the disability discrimination claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.