Case 3314235/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Chloe White v CBTax Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314235/2021
- Decision date
- 19 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms B Robinson, Ms L Thompson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Chloe White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal on 22-25 and 29-30 January 2024 before Employment Judge Young, with Ms B Robinson and Ms L Thompson as the lay members. The claimant was Miss Chloe White and the respondent was CBTax Ltd.
The written judgment record states that, by unanimous decision, all of the claimant's complaints were unfounded and the claim was dismissed. No monetary award was recorded in the extracted decision text.
The decision record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or by written request within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment text does not list the individual complaints, but the case context supplied with the decision identifies an age discrimination complaint; the tribunal records that all complaints were unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment text does not list the individual complaints, but the case context supplied with the decision identifies a breach of contract complaint; the tribunal records that all complaints were unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment text does not list the individual complaints, but the case context supplied with the decision identifies a disability discrimination complaint; the tribunal records that all complaints were unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment text does not list the individual complaints, but the case context supplied with the decision identifies a sex discrimination complaint; the tribunal records that all complaints were unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | 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.