Case 3302915/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Mariyum v The Partners trading as The Mounts Medical Centre, Maples Access Partnership, Favel Plus Surgery and Mayfield Surgery (“MMWF PCN”) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302915/2024
- Decision date
- 28 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claim of harassment related to sex because the claimant failed to pay the deposit order sent to the parties on 28 October 2025.
The tribunal also dismissed the direct sex discrimination allegation 7.2.2 and the pregnancy discrimination allegation 10.1.2 from the list of issues in the case management order sent on 28 October 2025. Those claims were dismissed for the same reason: failure to pay the deposit order.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Dismissed because the claimant failed to pay the deposit order sent to the parties on 28 October 2025. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination at allegation 7.2.2 of the list of issues was dismissed because the claimant failed to pay the deposit order sent to the parties on 28 October 2025. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy discrimination at allegation 10.1.2 of the list of issues was dismissed because the claimant failed to pay the deposit order sent to the parties on 28 October 2025. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.