Case 3200459/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Duygu v City Gaming Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200459/2024
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Duygu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms A Duygu, brought claims including unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, race discrimination, protected-disclosure claims, notice pay, holiday pay and unauthorised deductions from wages against City Gaming Ltd. The hearing took place at East London Hearing Centre before Employment Judge Gordon Walker on 6, 7, 8 and 9 May 2025.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. That claim was not finally determined on remedy at this judgment and was listed to proceed to a remedy hearing.
The sex discrimination and race discrimination claims were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant under rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The claims for automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure and detriment for making a protected disclosure were also dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 51.
The remaining claims for breach of contract (notice pay), holiday pay under breach of contract / the Working Time Regulations 1998, and unauthorised deductions from wages were each found not well founded and dismissed. The judgment records oral reasons only, so no written reasons were provided in the decision notice.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim succeeded and was listed to proceed to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant pursuant to rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant pursuant to rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Covers the claim of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure; dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant pursuant to rule 51. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Covers the claim of detriment for making a protected disclosure; dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant pursuant to rule 51. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay under breach of contract / Working Time Regulations 1998 was found not well founded and dismissed. |
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.