Case 2402134/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Edwards v Cognisys Group Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402134/2024
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 20 March 2025, Employment Judge M Butler gave judgment in the case brought by Miss C Edwards against Cognisys Group Ltd.
The judgment records that the claims insofar as they related to harassment related to sex were struck out in their entirety under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. It also records that the claims insofar as they related to victimisation were struck out in their entirety under the same rule.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the applicable time limit. No remedy or monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claims insofar as they relate to harassment related to sex are struck out in their entirety pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claims insofar as they relate to victimisation are struck out in their entirety pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.