Case 6010858/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Charlotte Brooks v The Co-Operative Group Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010858/2025
- Decision date
- 15 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Charlotte Brooks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Miss Charlotte Brooks brought complaints against Co-operative Group Ltd including harassment related to sex, harassment of a sexual nature, direct sex discrimination, and victimisation. The harassment complaints had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but the tribunal found it was just and equitable to extend time, and those harassment complaints were upheld.
The tribunal found the direct sex discrimination complaints to be well founded and upheld them. The victimisation complaints were found not to be well founded and were dismissed.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £19,042.39, inclusive of interest, in respect of injury to feelings within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties. The written judgment records that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment records that complaints of harassment related to sex and harassment of a sexual nature were out of time, but that it was just and equitable to extend time. The complaints were upheld. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | The direct sex discrimination complaints were found to be well founded and were upheld. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The victimisation complaints were found not to be well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,042
- 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.