Case 3312429/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simon Bennett (TU Representative) For the v Mr S Jagpal (consultant) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312429/2020
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms A Brosnan, Mr N Boustred
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simon Bennett (TU Representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Watford before Employment Judge Alliott, with Ms A Brosnan and Mr N Boustred as members, on 9 to 12 May 2022. The claimant was Ms Bellanira Ruiz Aristizabal and the respondent was Service to the Aged Ltd. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claims of sex discrimination and harassment related to sex. No further factual or legal reasoning is set out in the written record beyond the outcome of those claims.
The claimant’s detriment claim for trade union activity was found to be well founded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,150, described in the judgment as a total sum for injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim was stated to be related to sex and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Trade union | The tribunal found the detriment claim for trade union activity well founded and awarded £1,150 for injury to feelings. | Upheld | — | £1,150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,150
- across all upheld claims
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.