Case 4102619/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Employment Judge, Doherty Case Number: 4102619/2025 Mrs C Delf v Represented by: J Armstrong IQVIA Laboratories — 2025
- Case reference
- 4102619/2025
- Decision date
- 3 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Employment Judge, Doherty Case Number: 4102619/2025 Mrs C Delf
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented to the claim, so Employment Judge Doherty issued a judgment on the available material under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. On that basis, the tribunal found that the respondent unfairly dismissed Mrs C Delf and ordered a monetary award of £13,961.49.
The tribunal also found that the respondents discriminated against the claimant in terms of the Equality Act 2010 and ordered an award of £16,375 in respect of injury to feelings. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic, and it does not break down the dismissal award into basic and compensatory components. The total monetary awards stated in the judgment come to £30,336.49.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant and ordered a monetary award of £13,961.49. | Upheld | — | £13,961 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the claimant in terms of the Equality Act 2010 and ordered £16,375 in respect of injury to feelings. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic. | Upheld | — | £16,375 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,336
- 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.