Case 1301349/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Jackson, counsel v Mr B Hendley, Consultant — 2020
- Case reference
- 1301349/2021
- Decision date
- 28 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms W Ellis, Mr K Palmer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Jackson, counsel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was an employee and that her employment ended in law on 28 December 2020, when the respondent limited her hours to 20 per week and changed the arrangement to self-employed. It rejected the claimant's alleged offer letter and contract, found that the parties' actual agreement and practice was payment at £10 per hour, and held that she did not have qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The whistleblowing and discrimination claims failed on the factual findings. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant raised an employer liability insurance issue on 8 or 9 December 2020, so there was no protected disclosure for the s103A and s47B ERA claims. It accepted that the claimant was disabled, but found that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have known, of the disability-related need for an ergonomic chair; the reasonable adjustments and s15 EqA claims therefore failed. The victimisation claim also failed because the alleged grievances on 9, 15, 29 December 2020 and 5 January 2021 were not accepted as having been submitted or received on the dates claimed.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that she had a written or verbal entitlement to a much higher salary, commission, or mileage expenses. It found that the wages, commission and expenses claims failed because there was no proved contractual entitlement, but it upheld wrongful dismissal and holiday pay. It also found that itemised pay statements had not been provided and that the respondent had failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
The judgment records that, by consent, the respondent would pay the claimant £1,242. The text does not split that sum between the successful heads of claim, so only the total award is recorded here.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996 based on the alleged protected disclosure about employer liability insurance on 8/9 December 2020; the tribunal found no protected disclosure was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 based on the same alleged disclosure and the 28 December 2020 reduction of hours / change to self-employed status failed for the same reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim for an ergonomic chair and related auxiliary aid failed because the tribunal found the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have known, of the disability-related need. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Alternative s15 EqA 2010 claim arising from disability, based on the chair issue and dismissal, failed because the tribunal found no actual or constructive knowledge of the disability-related disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The alleged grievances on 9, 15, 29 December 2020 and 5 January 2021 were not accepted as submitted or received on the dates claimed, so there were no protected acts or victimising detriments. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,242
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- s103A ERA 1996
- s47B ERA 1996
- s20(5) EqA 2010
- s15 EqA 2010
- s27 EqA 2010
- s8 ERA 1996
- s1 ERA 1996
- s38 Employment Act 2002
- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.