Case 2501697/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501697/2022
- Decision date
- 14 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy Non-legal
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Mrs S Don, Mr T Euers
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Newcastle, before Employment Judge Loy with lay members Mrs S Don and Mr T Euers, heard the case on 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 July 2023. The written record identifies the claimant as Mrs P Harris and the respondent as Cotton Traders Limited, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed both complaints. It held that the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and failed. It also held that the claimant’s complaint of indirect associative disability discrimination was not well-founded and failed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No remedy or compensation figure is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and failed. No written reasons or remedy figures are provided in the record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written record states that the complaint of indirect associative disability discrimination was not well-founded and failed. No written reasons or remedy figures are provided in the record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.