Case 3302398/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Miss Jill Adams (marketing director) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302398/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby Janice
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs Janice Wood, Dr Claire Whitehouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Reading Employment Tribunal heard the claim on 13 to 14 November 2023. Miss Alexandra Crane appeared in person and Hogs Back Brewery Limited was represented by Miss Jill Adams, its marketing director. The tribunal panel comprised Employment Judge Talbot-Ponsonby, Mrs Janice Wood and Dr Claire Whitehouse.
The written record contains a single substantive decision: the claim for disability discrimination was found not well founded and was dismissed. No further findings of fact, legal analysis, or remedy assessment are set out in the written record, because the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The written judgment also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal stated that the claim for disability discrimination was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.