Case 2405897/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Bromley v The English Trading Company Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405897/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Bromley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten, the Tribunal dealt with several direct sex discrimination complaints brought by Ms R Bromley against The English Trading Company Limited. It struck out the allegations that she had been threatened with disciplinary action for removing materials from the respondent's premises in early 2018, that Mr Cooksey made sexist comments about the recruitment of a receptionist in August 2018, and that she was instructed to put on make-up in September 2018. Those complaints were struck out because they were presented out of time and the Tribunal decided it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
The Tribunal also struck out the allegation that the claimant was not paid overtime or a bonus compared with a male employee, holding that the allegation had no reasonable prospects of success. In relation to the remaining direct sex discrimination complaints, namely that she was required to wear a V-neck T-shirt while male employees wore round-neck T-shirts, and that she had to obtain authorisation for purchase orders in contrast to a male employee, the Tribunal ordered deposit orders. Those allegations were therefore not finally determined at this hearing.
The Tribunal further recorded that the claimant's remaining complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and constructive unfair dismissal were to proceed to a final hearing listed for 5 to 9 July 2021. No remedy was assessed at this preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Three direct sex discrimination allegations were struck out on time grounds: an allegation that the claimant was threatened with disciplinary action for removing materials from the respondent's premises in early 2018, an allegation that Mr Cooksey made sexist comments about the recruitment of a receptionist in August 2018, and an allegation that she was instructed to put on make-up in September 2018. The Tribunal held they were presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The allegation of direct sex discrimination that the claimant was not paid overtime or a bonus in comparison with a male employee was struck out because the Tribunal determined that it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaints that the claimant, as a female employee, was required to wear a V-neck T-shirt while male employees wore round-neck T-shirts, and that she had to obtain authorisation for her purchase orders unlike a male employee, were made subject to deposit orders. They were not finally determined at this hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- just and equitable to extend time
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.