Case 2501393/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Wilkinson v Blyth Constitutional Club — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501393/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram
- Venue
- via CVP at Newcastle
- Panel members
- Mr Cattell, Ms Don
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms M Wilkinson, brought claims against Blyth Constitutional Club for direct age discrimination, age-related harassment, and victimisation. The case was heard via CVP at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 12 to 16 July 2021 before Employment Judge Jeram sitting with Mr Cattell and Ms Don.
In the written judgment, the tribunal recorded that each of the claimant's claims was "not well founded" and dismissed them. The judgment identifies the statutory bases for the claims as s.13 Equality Act 2010 for direct age discrimination, s.26 Equality Act 2010 for harassment related to age, and s.27 Equality Act 2010 for victimisation.
The written record does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons in detail, and it notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age under s.26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 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.