Case 6016854/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Lisa Flannery v F&P Huddersfield Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016854/2024
- Decision date
- 2 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Drake Signed
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Lisa Flannery
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 2 May 2025, Employment Judge R S Drake heard the claimant in person. No response had been filed by the first respondent, and there was no appearance. The tribunal said it was satisfied that the ET1 had been sent to the first respondent's trading and registered office addresses.
On that basis, judgment was granted to the claimant in respect of all her heads of claim under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. The written record does not set out separate merits findings for each pleaded head and records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The judgment is a default judgment only. It states that the first respondent will receive the judgment and any notice of a future remedies hearing, but will not be permitted to take part in further proceedings without the judge's leave at that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
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.