Case 2405557/2023 · Employment Tribunal
K Hutchinson v James Hall & Company Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405557/2023
- Decision date
- 25 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
- Panel members
- L Atkinson, L Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K Hutchinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in Manchester on 11 to 13 March 2024 before Employment Judge Batten, with lay members L Atkinson and L Taylor. The claimant was represented in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but it does not set out those reasons in writing.
In its unanimous judgment, the tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded. It also found that the sex discrimination complaints failed and were dismissed. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the written judgment.
The decision notice states that written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made at the hearing or a written request is submitted within 14 days of the sending of the written record. On the face of the written record, the only recorded outcomes are dismissal of the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissal of the sex discrimination complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the sex discrimination complaints failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.