Case 3311199/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B-M Bliss v Floorspan Contracts Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311199/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Ms J Buck, Mr B Lynch
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B-M Bliss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's harassment related to age claim under sections 26 and 39(2) Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded in relation to the allegations at paragraphs 9, 15 and 16 of the particulars of claim. Other age-related harassment allegations were dismissed.
The tribunal found that the direct age discrimination claim under sections 13 and 39(2) Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded in relation to the allegations at paragraphs 7 and 19 of the particulars of claim. Other direct age discrimination allegations were dismissed, and the victimisation claim was dismissed.
The breach of contract claim concerning notice period succeeded. The holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The written judgment records outcomes only and states that reasons were given orally, with no remedy figures included.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to age succeeded only in relation to allegations at paragraphs 9, 15 and 16 of the particulars of claim. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | All other claims of harassment related to age were dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination succeeded only in relation to allegations at paragraphs 7 and 19 of the particulars of claim. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | All other claims of direct age discrimination were dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerned notice period. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal pursuant to rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. |
Legal tests applied
5 references- sections 26 and 39(2) Equality Act 2010
- section 123(2)(b) Equality Act 2010
- sections 13 and 39(2) Equality Act 2010
- sections 27 and 39(2) Equality Act 2010
- rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.