Case 3311483/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Seyhan Kaya v Turkish Bank (UK) Limited Heard: Watford Hearing Centre — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311483/2020
- Decision date
- 6 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Members
- Panel members
- Mr A Scott, Mr D Wharton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Seyhan Kaya
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford Hearing Centre on 11, 12, 13 and 14 July 2022, Employment Judge G Tobin sitting with members Mr A Scott and Mr D Wharton gave a unanimous oral judgment in Mrs Seyhan Kaya's claims against Turkish Bank (UK) Limited. The tribunal recorded that the hearing had been reduced from seven days to four days.
The tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed in breach of s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also held that she was not discriminated against on the grounds of age, in breach of s.13 Equality Act 2010.
Because both claims failed, the tribunal stated that the case was concluded and proceedings were dismissed. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not unfairly dismissed in breach of s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not discriminated against on grounds of age in breach of s.13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 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.
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.