Case 3305336/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305336/2021
- Decision date
- 25 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Members
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Ms Karen Omer, Mr Kevin Rose
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims at Cambridge on 27 and 28 February and 1 and 2 March 2023 before Employment Judge Tynan with members Ms Karen Omer and Mr Kevin Rose. The claimant, Ms Victoria Kiesel, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Julian Allsop, Counsel.
In the written judgment record, the tribunal stated that the claimant’s complaints of constructive unfair dismissal under sections 98 and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, detriments contrary to section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and unlawful discrimination contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and were dismissed.
The written record does not set out the tribunal’s detailed factual findings or legal reasoning. It also records that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal’s note. No remedy was awarded because all complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant alleged she was constructively unfairly dismissed under sections 98 and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal dismissed the complaint as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant alleged detriments contrary to section 47C of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal dismissed the complaint as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claimant alleged unlawful discrimination contrary to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal dismissed the complaint as not well founded. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 and s.99 ERA 1996
- s.47C ERA 1996
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
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
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.