Case 3304929/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Betts, Director — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304929/2022
- Decision date
- 8 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Norwich on 4 and 5 February 2025 before Employment Judge Postle. The tribunal found that the claimant was engaged as a worker within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Her claim that she suffered detriment for making public interest disclosures was not well founded.
The claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims for direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation were also found not well founded. The written record does not set out any separate monetary award for those claims.
The only successful claim was unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal held that the respondents were liable to pay £225 in respect of an outstanding contribution towards the claimant's hotel accommodation. The written record notes that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the claimant suffered detriment in making public interest disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Equality Act 2010 harassment claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Equality Act 2010 victimisation claim. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Outstanding contribution towards the claimant's hotel accommodation. | Upheld | — | £225 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £225
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230 ERA 1996
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.