Case 3310565/2023 · Employment Tribunal
AB v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310565/2023
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freshwater Tribunal
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mrs L Gaywood, Mrs J Buck
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AB
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a store manager and resigned after a disciplinary process concerning unwanted physical contact with a colleague. The tribunal found that none of the respondent's actions breached the implied term of trust and confidence, although it noted some elements of the process could have been dealt with better.
The tribunal dismissed the direct sex discrimination and sex harassment complaints. It found that any different treatment was due to management style and clashing personalities, and that any unwanted conduct was not related to sex.
The tribunal also dismissed the indirect race discrimination complaint. It found that the respondent applied a PCP requiring staff not to engage in unwanted touching, but that the PCP did not put Portuguese people at a particular disadvantage compared with non-Portuguese people.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the claim as unfair (constructive) dismissal and dismisses it as not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment dismisses the direct sex discrimination claim as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The judgment dismisses harassment related to sex as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment dismisses the indirect race discrimination claim as not well-founded. The claimant's case concerned Portuguese race or nationality/culture. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 section 13
- implied term of trust and confidence
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.