Case 3300044/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300044/2022
- Decision date
- 3 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood
- Panel members
- Mr C Juden, Mrs F Betts
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge R Wood with lay members Mr C Juden and Mrs F Betts at a CVP hearing on 9 to 13 October 2023. The tribunal held that Ms Bridget Flaherty was unfairly dismissed by London Borough of Islington. It ordered the respondent to pay £18,642.16 net by way of damages for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claim because it had been withdrawn by the claimant. It also dismissed the sex discrimination claim and the sexual orientation discrimination claim. The claim for unlawfully deducted wages was dismissed. The judgment records no separate split of the unfair dismissal award into basic and compensatory components, only the single net sum awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded £18,642.16 net by way of damages for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £18,642 |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the age discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to the claim as one for unlawfully deducted wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,642
- across all upheld claims
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.