Case 3302379/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Amelia Ross v Select Fashion Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302379/2023
- Decision date
- 26 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Amelia Ross
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing determined whether the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the claimant's Equality Act claims against Select Fashion Ltd in light of a Company Voluntary Arrangement approved on 22 May 2023. The respondents argued that the CVA required the claimant to discontinue the first claim against the first respondent and that the supervisors would instead adjudicate the claim.
The tribunal found that, in the absence of a statutory moratorium or court-granted moratorium, the tribunal's jurisdiction under section 120(1) of the Equality Act 2010 was not ousted by the CVA. It also concluded that the CVA dispute resolution process did not provide effective protection of the claimant's rights derived from EU law, because the process did not set out how the complaints would be adjudicated and would be determined by insolvency practitioners rather than a specialist Employment Tribunal.
The tribunal determined that it did have jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims. It invited further written submissions on the consequences of that finding and directed that the case be listed with case number 3308093/2023 for a further preliminary hearing on issues, case management and listing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal determined only that it had jurisdiction to hear the Equality Act claims; it did not determine the merits or remedy. | Other | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal determined only that it had jurisdiction to hear the Equality Act claims, including harassment related to sex; it did not determine the merits or remedy. | Other | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal determined only that it had jurisdiction to hear the Equality Act claims, including victimisation; it did not determine the merits or remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment records the claimant's contention that some complaints were properly characterised as pregnancy discrimination, but the preliminary issue was jurisdiction and the merits were not determined. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 120(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 144 Equality Act 2010
- principle of effectiveness
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.