Case 8000363/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000363/2023 Held at Aberdeen on February 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Members P Hammond J Copland Miss Chloe Balgowan v J. Puddleducks Childcare Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000363/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
- Panel members
- P Hammond, J Copland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000363/2023 Held at Aberdeen on February 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Members P Hammond J Copland Miss Chloe Balgowan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Aberdeen on 16 February 2024 before Employment Judge N M Hosie with members P Hammond and J Copland. Miss Chloe Balgowan appeared in person and J. Puddleducks Childcare Ltd was represented by Ms J Fowler, Director.
The written judgment records that the tribunal's unanimous decision, for the reasons given orally at the hearing, was that the claim was dismissed. The extracted text does not set out the oral reasons, so no further factual findings or legal analysis are recorded in the written judgment.
No monetary award is stated in the judgment. The only recorded outcome is dismissal of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment records only that 'the claim is dismissed'. The underlying reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not set out in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.