Case 3313510/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person, assisted by an interpreter For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 3313510/2020
Decision date: 28 April 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Laidler Appearances

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person, assisted by an interpreter For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was an open preliminary hearing at Bury St Edmunds by CVP before Employment Judge Laidler on 12 April 2022. The written judgment records that the Claimant appeared in person with an interpreter and the Respondent was represented by counsel. The judgment states that the claims of age and disability discrimination, together with monetary claims, were dismissed.

The tribunal also gave the Claimant leave to amend her remaining unfair dismissal complaint so that it could be advanced as a dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, namely that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that she had made a protected disclosure. 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.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Age	—
Disability discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Other	The judgment refers only to “monetary claims” being dismissed; no more specific cause of action is identified in the extracted text.	Dismissed	—	—

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.