Case 3315890/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Sheppard (Counsel). For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3315890/2019
- Decision date
- 16 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bloom Members
- Panel members
- Ms A Carvell, Mr S Holford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr T Sheppard (Counsel). For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Miss M Begilnu Phatey's claims against Amegreen Complex Homecare Limited were dismissed because settlement terms had been reached between the parties through ACAS conciliation. It is a short disposal judgment and does not set out findings on the merits of the underlying claims.
The written record notes that the case was heard at Cambridge by CVP on 13 December 2021 before Employment Judge Bloom with lay members Ms A Carvell and Mr S Holford. No remedy or compensation is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment does not set out the underlying particulars; the case listing identifies an unfair dismissal claim. The judgment records dismissal because settlement terms had been reached between the parties via ACAS conciliation. | Settled | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The short judgment does not set out the underlying particulars; the case listing identifies a pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim. The judgment records dismissal because settlement terms had been reached between the parties via ACAS conciliation. | Settled | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The short judgment does not set out the underlying particulars; the case listing identifies a sex discrimination claim. The judgment records dismissal because settlement terms had been reached between the parties via ACAS conciliation. | Settled | 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.