Case 3304196/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Herself, as a Litigant in Person For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 3304196/2023
Decision date: 1 September 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Conley
Venue: Norwich
Panel members: Ms S Williams, Mr A Hayes

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Herself, as a Litigant in Person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Norwich on 21 to 24 May 2024 before Employment Judge Conley, sitting with Ms S Williams and Mr A Hayes. The tribunal held that none of the claimant's discrimination claims were well founded and dismissed all of them. The judgment does not break those discrimination findings down further, but the listed categories were disability discrimination and sex discrimination.

The tribunal also held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. It recorded that it was possible the claimant might have been dismissed fairly had the respondent adopted a fair procedure. On that basis, the tribunal said it was considering making an adjustment to compensation under Polkey.

Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal listed the matter for a remedy hearing on the first convenient date after 1 September 2024, to be heard remotely via CVP.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The judgment states that none of the claimant's discrimination claims were well founded and that all were dismissed; the judgment does not separate the discrimination findings claim-by-claim.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Sex discrimination	The judgment states that none of the claimant's discrimination claims were well founded and that all were dismissed; the judgment does not separate the discrimination findings claim-by-claim.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded and said it would consider remedy, including a possible Polkey adjustment, at a later remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.