Loading…

Ms G Hughes (solicitor) For the v Respondent — Employment Tribunal 2023 | Tribunal Watch

Case 3311673/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms G Hughes (solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3311673/2022
Decision date: 29 March 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Ms G Hughes (solicitor) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt with two claims at this stage. It struck out the Claimant’s direct discrimination claim because of sex under s.13 Equality Act 2020, holding that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The decision did not determine the merits of that claim and no remedy was awarded for it.

The unfair dismissal claim was not finally determined in this judgment. The tribunal ordered that it would proceed to a final hearing listed for 6-8 November 2023, subject to payment of a deposit order. No liability finding or compensation figure was recorded in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	The tribunal held that the direct discrimination claim because of sex had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out.	Struck out	Sex	—
Unfair dismissal	The unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing on 6-8 November 2023, subject to payment of a deposit order.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.