Case 2500476/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 2500476/2025
- Decision date
- 9 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Dorothy
- Panel members
- Dorothy Winter, Paul Curtis
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAll claims brought by the second claimant, Melissa Gibson, were found not well-founded and dismissed. The written judgment does not identify those claims individually.
The first claimant, Machala Forster (formerly Fisher), did not succeed in her claims of harassment related to sex, victimisation, or unfair dismissal, each of which was found not well-founded and dismissed.
Ms Forster's direct sex discrimination claim succeeded in part. The tribunal found that Sureserve Compliance North Limited treated her less favourably than male comparators in materially similar circumstances by suspending her and failing to treat her complaints seriously, and that this treatment was on grounds of sex.
The respondent was ordered to pay Ms Forster £16,000 for injury to feelings, together with £2,293 interest calculated at 8% for the 654 days from 23 September 2024 to 9 July 2026. The total award was £18,293.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | All claims brought by the second claimant, Melissa Gibson, were dismissed as not well-founded; the written judgment does not identify their individual claim types. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Machala Forster's claim of harassment related to sex was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Machala Forster's victimisation claim was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Machala Forster's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Machala Forster's direct sex discrimination claim succeeded in part. | Upheld | Sex | £18,293 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,293
- across all upheld claims
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.