Case 3331213/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Haslam v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 3331213/2018
- Decision date
- 21 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms M Haslam
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to enter a response. Employment Judge Smail therefore recorded that the claimant’s claims of automatic unfair dismissal, victimisation relating to sex and disability, breach of contract, holiday pay and arrears of pay were well-founded. The judgment does not set out the underlying factual findings on liability in this short extract.
Compensation was not assessed in this judgment. The tribunal listed a further hearing on 4 March 2019 to determine compensation, and ordered the claimant to serve a schedule of loss, witness statement and supporting documents by 21 December 2018, with two copies of a bundle to be brought to the tribunal on the hearing date.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal was declared well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation relating to sex and disability was declared well-founded. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract was declared well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was declared well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay were declared well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.