Case 3301882/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Sisk v Mr C Rickwood and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3301882/2023
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Sisk
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out three allegations of victimisation. Those allegations concerned maternity training said to have been ordered by an earlier tribunal, a 2017 media interview about a previous discrimination claim and a referral to HR for possible disciplinary proceedings, and an alleged attempt in September 2020 to require the claimant to return to a Compliance Manager role.
The judgment records that those three allegations had no reasonable prospects of success. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
The claimant's remaining allegations of victimisation, together with claims for harassment related to disability, disability discrimination, and race discrimination, were not determined and remained listed for a hearing on 10-17 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Three specified allegations of victimisation were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment states that other allegations of victimisation and claims for harassment related to disability, disability discrimination, and race discrimination remained live and listed for a future hearing, so those matters were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospects of success
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.