Case 2413698/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Ordon v Hellermann Tyton Group plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 2413698/2023
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Ordon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Manchester on 11, 12, 13 and 14 March 2025 before Employment Judge Johnson. The claimant was Ms G Ordon and the respondent was Hellermann Tyton Limited. The tribunal gave its judgment orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time by a party.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claimant's complaint of harassment by reason of disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The written judgment records that both complaints were not well founded, meaning they were unsuccessful.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal contrary to section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held that the complaint of harassment by reason of the claimant's disability contrary to section 26 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and therefore unsuccessful. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.26 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.