Case 6006296/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Griffiths v Peninsula Business Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6006296/2024
- Decision date
- 20 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shergill
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms J Rathbone, Ms HD Price
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Griffiths
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Miss C Griffiths's claim for detriment under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, her claim for direct sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and her claim for pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the complaints were brought out of time. It held that the grounds for extending time under section 48(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 were not met, for reasons given at the hearing. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment identifies this only as a claim for detriment under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and does not state the underlying statutory basis of the alleged detriment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 48(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
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.