Case 6018639/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Warby v Dci Fire Protection Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6018639/2025
- Decision date
- 6 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Williams Tribunal
- Venue
- Cardiff
- Panel members
- R Hartwell, M Walters
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Warby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's harassment related to sex complaint. The written judgment states that the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit, that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and that the complaint was not well-founded.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claims of constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal, stating that each was not well-founded. The written record says reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out a remedy or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The written judgment states that the harassment related to sex complaint was out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time; it also states the complaint was not well-founded. Reasons were given orally only. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The written judgment states that the constructive dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally only. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally only. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.