Case 2411385/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Sultana v Dovehaven Services LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411385/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs A Eyre, Mr P Dobson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Sultana
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Liverpool before Employment Judge Benson with Mrs A Eyre and Mr P Dobson as lay members. Its unanimous judgment was that the claimant’s complaint of automatic unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s discrimination complaints. It found that the complaint of discrimination connected with pregnancy was not well founded, as were the complaints of direct discrimination because of religion and sex discrimination. The written record records the outcomes only and does not set out the tribunal’s oral reasons.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded as a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal; found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded as discrimination connected with the claimant’s pregnancy; found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded as direct discrimination because of religion; found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Found not well founded and 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.