Case 3331970/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J A Patterson v Merchant Taylors Oxfordshire Academy Trust Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3331970/2018
- Decision date
- 13 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Panel members
- Mr P Hough, Mrs A Gibson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J A Patterson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading by CVP on 12 to 13 August 2020 before Employment Judge Anstis, sitting with Mr P Hough and Mrs A Gibson. The claimant, Miss J A Patterson, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The published judgment contains only the dispositive outcome: "The claimant's claims are dismissed." No written reasons are included in the record provided.
The note to the judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note. On the face of the published record, no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim type inferred from the case listing context; the published written record only states that the claimant's claims were dismissed and does not set out individual causes of action. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim type inferred from the case listing context; the published written record only states that the claimant's claims were dismissed and does not set out individual causes of action. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record does not separate this claim from the others; it records only that the claimant's claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.