Case 1307432/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Horsley v Hi Spec Facilities Services Limited and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1307432/2020
- Decision date
- 22 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 19, 20 and 21 July 2022, Employment Judge Faulkner sitting alone recorded that the claimant’s complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment states that, as a result, all complaints against the second and third respondents were dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, but that the dismissal was unfair. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore well founded.
The tribunal awarded the claimant £7,264.91 by way of a compensatory award for unfair dismissal, payable within 14 days of the judgment. It recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply, and no separate basic award or injury to feelings award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments; dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, but the dismissal was unfair. | Upheld | — | £7,265 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,265
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,265
- 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.