Case 3314221/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Miss Afriyie, Consultant — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314221/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mrs C Smith, Ms J Costley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Norwich on 8, 9 and 10 January 2024 before Employment Judge Postle with Mrs C Smith and Ms J Costley. The tribunal's unanimous decision was that Miss Navjoyt Pandher's claims against Collaborative Care Solutions Limited and Mr Mark Simon were dismissed. The judgment records that she was not constructively or discriminatorily unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the direct discrimination claims. It found that the claimant had not been subjected to direct sex discrimination or direct age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and had not been subjected to harassment related to sex and age under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant's claim for notice pay was found not well founded. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not constructively or discriminatorily unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex and age under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's claim for notice pay was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 26 Equality Act 2010
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.