Case 2503573/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Miss S Mulligan v Balfour Beatty Group Employment Limited — 2019

Case reference: 2503573/2018
Decision date: 28 February 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss S Mulligan

Respondent

Balfour Beatty Group Employment Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent failed to present a response. On the information available to Employment Judge Johnson, judgment was entered under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.

The tribunal found that the complaints of unfair dismissal, unfair disability discrimination, unlawful sex discrimination, and unlawful discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity were well founded and all succeeded. The listed hearing on 26 March 2019 was converted to a remedy hearing, and no remedy figures were set out in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Rule 21 judgment states the complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.	Upheld	—	—
Disability discrimination	Rule 21 judgment states the complaint of unfair disability discrimination is well founded and succeeds.	Upheld	Disability	—
Sex discrimination	Rule 21 judgment states the complaint of unlawful sex discrimination is well founded and succeeds.	Upheld	Sex	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	Rule 21 judgment states the complaint of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity is well founded and succeeds.	Upheld	Pregnancy and maternity	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.