Case 2403570/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403570/2020
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr G Pennie, Mr A Wells
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Manchester before Employment Judge Sharkett, with Mr G Pennie and Mr A Wells, and heard evidence on 8, 9 and 10 December 2021 and on 28 February and 1 March 2022. The claimant was represented by Mr K McNerney of Counsel and the respondent by Ms A Siddosis of Counsel.
In the judgment, the tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it. It also held that the claimant's claims of unlawful discrimination on the protected characteristics of sex and disability were not well founded and dismissed those claims.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the claim of unlawful discrimination on the protected characteristic of sex was not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claim of unlawful discrimination on the protected characteristic of disability was not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.