Case 3304951/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304951/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mrs D Schwartzel brought claims against GMB Union and Trade Union Legal LLP. The hearing took place in public at Cambridge on 25 August 2023 before Employment Judge Tynan.
The judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Second Respondent had no reasonable prospects of success and were struck out. The written record does not provide further reasons, noting that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The one-page judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Second Respondent were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment text does not set out the claim particulars; this claim type is taken from the listing category. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The one-page judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Second Respondent were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment text does not set out the claim particulars; this claim type is taken from the listing category. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The one-page judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Second Respondent were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment text does not set out the claim particulars; this claim type is taken from the listing category. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The one-page judgment states that the Claimant's claims against the Second Respondent were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment text does not set out the victimisation particulars; this claim type is taken from the listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
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
- Open official judgment 4 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.