Case 2414246/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Allen v Primark Stores Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414246/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms H Fletcher, Mrs F Crane
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Manchester before Employment Judge Robinson with Ms H Fletcher and Mrs F Crane, heard Miss N Allen's claims against Primark Stores Limited on 19, 20 and 21 October 2020. The claimant was represented by Mr Culshaw, solicitor, and the respondent by Miss Kight, counsel.
The judgment records that the claims for constructive unfair dismissal, indirect sex discrimination, and a claim under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 all failed and were dismissed. The written judgment does not set out the tribunal's reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit. No remedy was awarded or recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a claim for constructive unfair dismissal and records that it failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment describes this as a claim for indirect sex discrimination and records that it failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Other | The judgment describes this as a claim under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and records that it failed and was dismissed; no more specific taxonomy category is available. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.