Case 1304180/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Halsall v HRD Private Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1304180/2018
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Halsall
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that proceedings against the second respondent, Mr H Dhaliwal, were stayed because he was an undischarged bankrupt. The judgment then dealt with the first respondent, HRD Private Ltd, and upheld three claims brought by Mrs S Halsall.
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £9,692.48 and a compensatory award of £1,327.12, and stated that the compensatory award was not subject to the recoupment regulations.
The tribunal also found that the first respondent breached the claimant's contract and awarded £466.40 in damages in relation to notice. In addition, it found that the claimant was subjected to disability related harassment and awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings, together with £800 interest.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £9,692.48 and a compensatory award of £1,327.12; the compensatory award was stated to be outside the recoupment regulations. | Upheld | — | £11,020 |
| Breach of contract | Damages were awarded in relation to notice. | Upheld | — | £466 |
| Harassment | Described in the judgment as disability related harassment; the tribunal also awarded £800 interest on the injury to feelings award. | Upheld | Disability | £10,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,286
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,692
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,327
- 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.