Case 3301621/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Fenty v Housing Solutions — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301621/2023
- Decision date
- 29 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Fenty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anstis sat alone at Reading on 29 September 2023. The claimant, Miss S Fenty, did not attend or have representation. The respondent, Housing Solutions, was represented by Ms L Whittington of counsel.
The written judgment records only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. No separate liability findings, facts, or remedy calculations are set out in the short written record.
The tribunal noted that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record. On the face of the published judgment, no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. This claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing category rather than expressly described in the short written judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. This claim type is inferred from the GOV.UK listing category rather than expressly described in the short written judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.