Case 3302333/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Flack v Holiday Inn (R. Cambridge Propco Ltd) PRELIMINARY HEARING IN PUBLIC — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302333/2022
- Decision date
- 3 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Flack
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge L Brown sitting alone. The claimant, Mrs A Flack, appeared in person and the respondent appeared through its HR Director, Mrs Pope. The tribunal dealt only with case-management and strike-out issues; no substantive liability findings or remedy assessment were made.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's disability discrimination claim had previously been withdrawn. It therefore dismissed that claim under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No compensation or other remedy was awarded in relation to that claim.
The tribunal also struck out the complaints of sex discrimination, harassment and victimisation under Rule 37(1)(b). The stated reason was that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted had been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. The judgment does not set out separate factual findings on the merits of those complaints.
At the end of the hearing the respondent requested that its name be changed from Holiday Inn Ltd to Holiday Inn (R. Cambridge Propco Ltd), and the tribunal ordered that amendment. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant had previously withdrawn the disability discrimination claim, and the tribunal dismissed it under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal struck out the sex discrimination complaint under Rule 37(1)(b) because of the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The harassment complaint was struck out together with the sex discrimination and victimisation complaints under Rule 37(1)(b). The judgment does not separately specify the protected characteristic for this complaint, but it was included in the same group as the sex discrimination complaint. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaint was struck out under Rule 37(1)(b) together with the sex discrimination and harassment complaints. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 52
- Rule 37(1)(b)
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.