Case 2401487/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Pal v The Hut.com Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401487/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms Berkeley-Hill, Ms Roscoe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Pal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an agency warehouse operative, brought complaints arising from an incident on 12 November 2022 involving comments allegedly made by Mr Delev. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, witnesses for the claimant, and witnesses for the respondent, and reached a majority judgment.
The majority found that Mr Delev told the claimant that she had no right to speak to him as she was a woman and an agency worker, and also made a further comment to her because he was annoyed that, as a woman, she had answered him back when challenged about sitting on a flatbed trolley to tie her shoelaces. The majority concluded that the comments amounted to less favourable treatment because of sex and harassment related to sex, and the respondent had not shown a non-discriminatory explanation. A minority disagreed with the factual findings about whether the comments were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaints of direct discrimination are well-founded and succeed. No remedy amount is stated in the provided text. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaints of harassment related to sex are well-founded and succeed. No remedy amount is stated in the provided text. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- balance of probabilities
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
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.