Case 3202310/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Connor v PTP Funding Limited, Trading as Welendus and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202310/2018
- Decision date
- 5 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms L Conwell-Tillotson, Mr D Ross
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms E Connor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal sat at East London Hearing Centre on 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 January 2020 before Employment Judge C Lewis with members Ms L Conwell-Tillotson and Mr D Ross. The judgment records that the decision was unanimous.
The tribunal found in favour of Ms E Connor on three claims: harassment related to sex contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13, and victimisation contrary to section 27. No further factual findings, reasoning, or remedy figures are set out in the extracted judgment text provided.
The judgment does not record any separate award, split remedy, or costs order in the extracted text. The public record available here therefore shows the liability outcome only, with all monetary fields left unrecorded in this extraction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claimant succeeded in harassment related to sex contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant succeeded in direct sex discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant succeeded in victimisation contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | — | — |
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.
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.