Case 2407891/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Julie Ashall v Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407891/2022
- Decision date
- 5 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Members
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs S A Humphreys, Mrs C A Titherington
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Julie Ashall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at Manchester before Employment Judge G Tobin with lay members Mrs S A Humphreys and Mrs C A Titherington, heard the case on 25, 26 and 27 March 2024. It unanimously held that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures within s43B Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also held that the respondent did not dismiss the claimant because she had made any protected disclosures, so the claim under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 failed. No separate monetary remedy was awarded.
The tribunal further rejected the claim that the claimant had been directly discriminated against contrary to s13 Equality Act 2010 on the basis of her gender-critical beliefs. All outstanding matters having been determined, the proceedings were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures within s43B Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the respondent did not dismiss her because she had made protected disclosures, contrary to s103A. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal rejected the claim that the claimant was directly discriminated against contrary to s13 Equality Act 2010 on the basis of her gender-critical beliefs. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s13 Equality Act 2010
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.