Case 3300464/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Keddy v Travel Up Ltd v — 2020
- Case reference
- 3300464/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Milner-Moore
- Venue
- Via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr A Kapur, Ms J Pope
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Keddy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting via CVP on 5-7 October 2020, heard Mr S Keddy's claims against Travel Up Ltd and gave judgment orally. It found that the respondent's treatment of the claimant during his probation and the dismissal did not amount to direct sex discrimination. The sex discrimination claim, brought under sections 13 and 39(2)(c) and (d) of the Equality Act 2010, was therefore not upheld.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's breach of contract claim. Separately, it rejected the claim brought under regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. No monetary award was recorded in the written judgment.
Reasons were given orally during the hearing and no written reasons were requested. The written record does not identify any split remedy or additional findings beyond the dismissal of the three claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found that the respondent's treatment of the claimant during probation and its dismissal of him was not direct sex discrimination. The claim was said to be contrary to sections 13 and 39(2)(c) and (d) of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim of breach of contract was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claim under regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 13 and 39(2)(c) and (d) of the Equality Act 2010
- regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.