Case 2504240/2019 · Employment Tribunal
K Voy v Salvation Army Trustee Company Limited Heard by CVP at: Newcastle Upon Tyne — 2020
- Case reference
- 2504240/2019
- Decision date
- 25 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Dempsey
- Panel members
- P Kent, S Mee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K Voy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim for breach of section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. The hearing took place by CVP at Newcastle Upon Tyne on 11-13 and 25 November 2020 before Employment Judge O'Dempsey and non-legal members P Kent and S Mee.
The tribunal awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings and £876.65 interest on that compensation. The interest was calculated for the period from 8 October 2019 to 13 November 2020, which the judgment notes was the date of oral judgment on that issue.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the written record. No further factual findings or separate head of loss are set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim for breach of section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. The written record does not set out further findings beyond the remedy awarded. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £10,877 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,877
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.