Case 1300786/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Russell v RLK Solicitors Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300786/2018
- Decision date
- 24 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs Ray, Mr Kennedy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 24 June 2022 at Birmingham, before Employment Judge Flood sitting with Mrs Ray and Mr Kennedy, the tribunal recorded a judgment by consent in full and final settlement of the claim including remedy. The order required the respondent, RLK Solicitors Limited, to pay the claimant, Mr D Russell, within 30 days.
The judgment does not make findings on liability or set out the tribunal's reasoning on the merits. It records only the parties' agreed disposal and the heads of loss agreed between them. The order is therefore a settlement record rather than a merits determination.
The respondent was ordered to pay £10,000 for injury to feelings in respect of the claimant's dismissal, £5,000 for injury to feelings in respect of discrimination other than in respect of the claimant's dismissal, and £20,000 in respect of loss of earnings. The order also states that there is no order as to costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Consent judgment recorded in full and final settlement of the claim including remedy. The order does not set out liability findings or separate the award by pleaded claim; it allocates sums to injury to feelings in respect of the claimant's dismissal, injury to feelings in respect of discrimination other than the dismissal, and loss of earnings. | Settled | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £20,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.