Case 3311737/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rachel Spread v London Fire Commissioner — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311737/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Appearance
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rachel Spread
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claimant and the respondent's counsel at Watford Tribunal by CVP on 12 June 2023. The judgment records that claim 2.1.1 from the List of Issues in the Case Management Order dated 24 March 2023 was dismissed by strike out as an abuse of process.
The judgment also records that claims 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 from the same List of Issues were dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Claim 2.1.1 of the List of Issues in the Case Management Order of 24 March 2023 was dismissed by strike out as an abuse of process. The extracted judgment does not set out the factual allegation behind this list issue. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim 2.1.6 of the List of Issues in the Case Management Order of 24 March 2023 was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The extracted judgment does not set out the factual allegation behind this list issue. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim 2.1.7 of the List of Issues in the Case Management Order of 24 March 2023 was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. The extracted judgment does not set out the factual allegation behind this list issue. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
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.