Case 2404115/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Carrigg v David Woods, Christopher Woods and Alex Woods (a partnership t/a Womble Inn) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404115/2023
- Decision date
- 13 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr A Clarke, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Carrigg
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short oral judgment heard on 29 and 30 January 2024 before Employment Judge Benson sitting with Mr A Clarke and Mr J Murdie. The claimant, Miss S Carrigg, appeared in person and the respondent partnership trading as Womble Inn was represented in person by Mr D Woods.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of harassment related to sex. The written record does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning, but it records the outcome in express terms.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was not dismissed. On that basis, her complaint of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint was pleaded as harassment related to sex. The written record states that it failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the claimant was not dismissed and that her complaint of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.