Case 2402965/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. S. Heath v Ceva Logistics Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402965/2019
- Decision date
- 16 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. S. Heath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal declared that the respondent indirectly discriminated against the claimant on the protected characteristic of sex in the course of a reorganisation and redundancy exercise that led to her dismissal with notice on 7 November 2018. The claimant’s sex discrimination claim succeeded.
The tribunal also declared that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant on 7 November 2018, and that claim also succeeded. The respondent was absent and had filed no response to the claim.
Compensation for sex discrimination comprised one month’s pay, interest on that financial loss, damages for injury to feelings, and interest on those damages, totalling £14,880.09. For unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded no basic award because redundancy pay had already been paid, and awarded £612 for loss of statutory rights, making the total award £15,492.09.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the respondent indirectly discriminated against the claimant in relation to sex in the context of a reorganisation and redundancy exercise leading to dismissal. No written reasons were provided. | Upheld | Sex | £14,880 |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. No written reasons were provided. The basic award was nil because redundancy pay had been paid. | Upheld | — | £612 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,492
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £612
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.