Case 2401969/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Hughes v Progressive Support Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2401969/2019
- Decision date
- 19 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Dr L Roberts, Mr P Gates
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Liverpool on 14 to 16 October 2019 before Employment Judge Buzzard, Dr L Roberts and Mr P Gates. In its unanimous judgment, it dismissed the claimant's indirect sex discrimination claim, describing it as not well-founded.
It also dismissed the claimant's victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, again recording that the claim was not well-founded. The written record does not set out any further factual findings or legal reasoning beyond the dispositive orders.
The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment describes this as a claim of indirect sex discrimination and records that it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records a claim of victimisation contrary to section 27 Equality Act 2010 and says it was not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.