Case 2402167/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Taberner v ALM Translations Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402167/2022
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr B Rowen, Dr H Vahramian
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Taberner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claim at Manchester over 20, 21 and 22 June 2023 before Employment Judge M Butler, sitting with Mr B Rowen and Dr H Vahramian. It dismissed the claim of detriment because of taking parental leave under Regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, dismissed the direct sex discrimination claim, and found that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed, so the unfair constructive dismissal claim also failed.
The extracted judgment text records the outcomes only and states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing. It also records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record of the decision, so no further factual findings or remedy figures are contained in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parental leave | The tribunal held that the claim of being subjected to a detriment because of taking parental leave, pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the direct sex discrimination claim did not succeed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had not been constructively dismissed and dismissed the claim for unfair constructive dismissal. | 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.
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.