Case 3302681/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rachel Osborne v Top Pizza Palace Ltd t/a Papa Johns — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302681/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Ms M Harris, Mr R Clifton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rachel Osborne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Bury St Edmunds on 20 to 22 May 2024 before Employment Judge Michell, Ms M Harris and Mr R Clifton. Miss Rachel Osborne appeared in person and Top Pizza Palace Ltd t/a Papa Johns was represented by counsel, Mr C McDevitt.
The written record states that the claimant's claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment were not well founded and were dismissed. The record does not set out the underlying reasons for those outcomes in this short form judgment.
No monetary award is recorded in the written decision, and the document states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The written record states the claimant's claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment were not well founded and dismissed. No separate findings or remedy split are provided. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The written record states the claimant's claims of direct sex discrimination and harassment were not well founded and dismissed. No separate findings or remedy split are provided. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.