Case 3332686/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Minns, Husband For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3332686/2018
- Decision date
- 21 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr M Bhatti, Miss J Smith
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr G Minns, Husband For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Middlesex University from August 2003 to 31 July 2008. Her claim of direct discrimination because of sex was found not well founded and was dismissed.
Her breach of contract claim, based on enhanced redundancy pay on her pre-reduction hours, was not proved and was dismissed. The judgment also records that she was entitled to enhanced redundancy pay covering the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July 2008, and that the respondent agreed to pay £3,845.80 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The claim was for direct discrimination because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was based on enhanced redundancy pay on pre-reduction hours. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that the claimant was entitled to enhanced redundancy pay for the period 1 August 2003 to 31 July 2008 and that the respondent agreed to pay £3,845.80 gross. | Settled | — | £3,846 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,846
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.