Case 6022557/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Maddox v Made Architecture Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022557/2024
- Decision date
- 10 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner Approved
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Maddox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed all complaints that the Respondent had breached the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. It also dismissed all complaints of breach of the Respondent's duty of care in respect of the Claimant's physical and mental health on the same jurisdictional basis.
The judgment stated that this disposal did not prevent the Claimant from relying on factual matters said to establish any failure by the Respondent to comply with its health and safety obligations or its duties as employer, so far as those matters were relevant to her unfair dismissal complaint or her complaints under the Equality Act 2010, including on remedy if any of those complaints succeeded. No substantive findings on unfair dismissal or Equality Act liability are made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear complaints of breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear complaints of breach of the Respondent's duty of care in respect of the Claimant's physical and mental health. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.