Case 3305840/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305840/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mr C Davie, Ms L Davies
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had a sound business reason for requiring the claimant to work full-time from the office in the proposed role, which included raising purchase orders with some urgency and dealing with queries and meetings. Although the tribunal noted a degree of inflexibility in the respondent's process, it concluded that the respondent's decision and actions were reasonable in the circumstances and that the dismissal was fair.
For the indirect sex discrimination claim, the tribunal considered the requirement to attend the office during core working hours. It accepted that women in the relevant pool, and the claimant in particular, were put at a disadvantage by the requirement because of childcare responsibilities, but found that the requirement was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of efficient performance of the role to support the wider business and its clients.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and did not need to consider contributory fault or Polkey. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment heading and reserved judgment refer to indirect sex discrimination, although one procedural heading/text reference says indirect race discrimination. The tribunal's analysis identifies sex as the relevant protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- some other substantial reason
- Hollister v National Farmers Union
- band of reasonable responses
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- Allen v Primark Stores Ltd
- Ministry of Defence v MacMillan
- Edwards v London Underground
- Dobson v North Cumbria Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust
- Barry v Midland Bank
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.