Case 3201062/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Dawson v TP Global Operations Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201062/2023
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs M Legg, Ms M Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Dawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs H Dawson's unfair dismissal claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The tribunal recorded that the claim was well founded, but it did not decide remedy at this hearing.
The claimant's claims brought under sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and were dismissed. In the extracted text, the tribunal does not set out the detailed factual or legal reasons for that dismissal.
The judgment states that the remaining issues of remedy in the unfair dismissal case will be dealt with at a further hearing, so no award figure is recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. Remedy for that claim was deferred to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claimant's claims brought under sections 18 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and were dismissed. The judgment does not give further detail on the reasoning in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 18 and 39 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.