Case 3311695/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Breneska v Wincanton Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311695/2023
- Decision date
- 28 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Breneska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at Reading on 22 October 2024, Employment Judge Anstis recorded that most of the claimant's claims were struck out. The stated basis was that those claims were either not within the tribunal's jurisdiction or had no reasonable prospect of success.
Two matters were excepted from the strike-out decision: a claim that the claimant should have been paid two months' notice rather than one month's notice, and a claim of unlawful victimisation relating to an alleged failure or refusal by the respondent in June 2023 to provide a reference for the claimant for work at Heathrow for Wilson James. The judgment states that the relevant protected act for the victimisation claim was said to be in an email dated 14 April 2022 and its accompanying statement.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally. It does not record any monetary remedy, final determination of the two excepted claims, or lay panel members.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim that the claimant should have been paid two months' notice rather than one month's notice was expressly excepted from the strike-out judgment; no final merits outcome or remedy is recorded. | Other | — | — |
| Victimisation | The claim of unlawful victimisation concerning an alleged failure or refusal to provide a June 2023 reference for work at Heathrow for Wilson James was expressly excepted from the strike-out judgment; no final merits outcome or remedy is recorded. The judgment identifies the protected act as an email dated 14 April 2022 and accompanying statement, but does not identify a protected characteristic. | Other | — | — |
| Equal pay | The gov.uk listing identifies an Equal Pay Act claim. The judgment states that, except for the notice-pay and victimisation-reference claims, the claimant's claims were struck out as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction or having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The gov.uk listing identifies a redundancy claim. The judgment states that, except for the notice-pay and victimisation-reference claims, the claimant's claims were struck out as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction or having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies sex discrimination. The judgment states that, except for the notice-pay and victimisation-reference claims, the claimant's claims were struck out as outside the tribunal's jurisdiction or having no reasonable prospect of success. |
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.
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.