Case 2503791/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Watts v Dimensions (UK) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2503791/2019
- Decision date
- 12 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris Members
- Panel members
- Mrs C Hunter, Mrs D Newey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Watts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Newcastle Hearing Centre by CVP on 12 March 2021 before Employment Judge Morris with members Mrs C Hunter and Mrs D Newey, gave a unanimous judgment on two Equality Act 2010 claims brought by Mrs J Watts against Dimensions (UK) Limited.
The tribunal held that the complaint of direct age discrimination, pleaded as less favourable treatment because of age contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 with reference to section 13, was not well-founded and was dismissed. It also held that the complaint of harassment related to age, pleaded contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 with reference to section 26, was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The written judgment states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. No remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment records a complaint of direct age discrimination contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 with reference to section 13; it was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records a complaint of harassment related to age contrary to section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 with reference to section 26; it was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 39 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 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.