Vol. I·6 May 2026

Search the index

Loading…

Loading page content.

Tribunal Watch

A structured, cross-cut index of UK employment tribunal decisions, built from the primary record at gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. Independent of HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice.

Not legal advice. Information on this site is a matter of public record; it is not guidance on any individual case.

Editorial

About this site
Methodology
Corrections policy
Editorial standards

Rights & privacy

Open Government Licence v3.0
Privacy notice
Data subject requests
Atom feed (recent decisions)

A Niepel v R Thompson and G Smith [As trustees for and on behalf of the members of the Hale Lawn Tennis Club] PRELIMINARY HEARING — Employment Tribunal 2025 | Tribunal Watch

Tribunal Watch/R Thompson and G Smith [As trustees for and on behalf of the members of the Hale Lawn Tennis Club] PRELIMINARY HEARING/6003247/2024

Case 6003247/2024 · Employment Tribunal

A Niepel v R Thompson and G Smith [As trustees for and on behalf of the members of the Hale Lawn Tennis Club] PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025

Case reference: 6003247/2024
Decision date: 26 June 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten

Indexed: 26 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

A Niepel

Respondent

R Thompson and G Smith [As trustees for and on behalf of the members of the Hale Lawn Tennis Club] PRELIMINARY HEARING

Claims brought

3 categories

Sex discrimination
Unlawful deduction from wages
Other

Source tags (gov.uk)

Sex Discrimination
Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Written Statements

Outcomes per claim are extracted in a second pass and are not yet published on this page.

Source document

Primary record

The full judgment is available on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Judgment 1 (PDF) ↗

Judgment 2 (PDF) ↗

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.