Case 2401391/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Cavaghan v Estate Research Limited Estate Research PC Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401391/2021
- Decision date
- 28 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Cavaghan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 15 September 2021 before Employment Judge Howard. The claimant, Mrs J Cavaghan, appeared in person and the respondents were represented by counsel. The judgment records that the claimant was not a disabled person within section 1 and Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time.
On that basis, the disability discrimination claim was struck out. The judgment also states that the claims of discrimination on grounds of sex, pregnancy or maternity, and marital status, together with the harassment claim, were dismissed upon withdrawal. No financial remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within s1 and Schedule 1, Part 1 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment refers to this as discrimination on grounds of marital status; it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s1 and Schedule 1, Part 1 Equality Act 2010
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.