Case 3300531/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Anthea Constantinou v Wealden Leisure Limited t/a Freedom Leisure — 2026
- Case reference
- 3300531/2025
- Decision date
- 30 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Annand Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anthea Constantinou
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered complaints of harassment related to age and race. It also recorded that the respondent's response to the harassment complaints was not struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) for failure to comply with a Tribunal order, and was not struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The complaint of harassment related to age succeeded. The tribunal found that this complaint had been presented outside the applicable time limit, but it was just and equitable to extend time. The judgment records an award of £2,000 for injury to feelings.
The complaint of harassment related to race was dismissed as not well-founded. The only further monetary award recorded in the judgment was interest on the injury to feelings award, assessed at £340.16 under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The tribunal found the age-related harassment complaint was presented outside the applicable time limit but extended time on a just and equitable basis. | Upheld | Age | £2,340 |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,340
- 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.