Case 1305236/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mrs A Sabesan (Director) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305236/2023
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell Signed
- Panel members
- Mrs D Rance, Mr C Greatorex
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that Ms H Adams was unfairly dismissed by Meir Heath Post Office Limited. It awarded a basic award of £926.25 and expressly stated that she was not entitled to a compensatory award.
The tribunal also found that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising from the claimant’s disability, contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. For that claim, it assessed compensation for injury to feelings at £3,450, and recorded that this figure included interest.
The total award was £4,376.25. The judgment does not set out any separate breakdown for interest beyond stating that the injury to feelings figure included it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded a basic award of £926.25. It stated that the claimant was not entitled to a compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £926 |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the respondent treated the claimant unfavourably because of something arising from the claimant’s disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. It assessed compensation for injury to feelings at £3,450, described as including interest; no separate interest figure was set out. | Upheld | Disability | £3,450 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,376
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £926
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
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.