Case 2600155/2024 · Employment Tribunal
K Wilkinson v Delcor Partnership LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600155/2024
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Tribunal
- Venue
- Leicester
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Srivastava, Tribunal Member Bhogaita
Parties
2 namedClaimant
K Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Leicester heard the case on 5, 8 and 9 September 2025 before Employment Judge McTigue, with Tribunal Members Srivastava and Bhogaita. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s note on reasons.
The judgment records four complaints and dismisses each one as not well founded: harassment related to disability, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and discrimination arising from disability. No monetary remedy is recorded in the written judgment, and no award is set out in the decision text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to disability was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Complaint of direct sex discrimination was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of harassment related to sex was found not well founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability was found not well founded. | 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.