Case 6012444/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Nicole Hamer v Done Bros (Cash Betting) Ltd t/a Betfred RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012444/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Nicole Hamer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private preliminary hearing by videolink at Leeds on 25 July 2025, Employment Judge R S Drake considered the claimant's breach of contract complaint. The tribunal recorded that this complaint, presented on 22 September 2024, failed and was dismissed because the claimant's employment terminated later, on 30 January 2025, and therefore had not terminated before the claims were presented.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant's claims of direct discrimination because of sex and/or sexual orientation, and harassment, remain extant and are to be determined. No remedy was awarded in this judgment, and written reasons were not included in the record unless requested under the tribunal's usual procedure.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint of breach of contract, presented on 22 September 2024, failed and was dismissed because the claimant's employment terminated later on 30 January 2025 and therefore had not terminated before presentation of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of direct discrimination because of sex remains extant and is to be determined. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The judgment states that the claim of direct discrimination because of sexual orientation remains extant and is to be determined. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the harassment claim remains extant and is to be determined; the text does not specify the protected characteristic for that harassment claim. | Other | — | — |
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.