Case 2604344/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Byrne v Jo Cowan-Brown t/a Happy Days Nursery — 2022
- Case reference
- 2604344/2020
- Decision date
- 16 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Ms J Rawlins, Mr C Bhogaita
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Byrne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Miss N Byrne's claims at Nottingham on 13, 15 and 16 June 2022 before Employment Judge Victoria Butler sitting with Ms J Rawlins and Mr C Bhogaita. The respondent was Jo Cowan-Brown t/a Happy Days Nursery, represented by counsel. The written judgment records that the claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination.
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The only substantive determination recorded in the written judgment is the outcome: the claimant's unfair dismissal claim failed, and the indirect sex discrimination claim also failed. No award is recorded in the written decision.
The record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days. As a result, this extracted text does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning beyond the formal dismissal of both claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claimant's indirect sex discrimination claim. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.