Case 1308544/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Her aunt [name redacted] a lay representative For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 1308544/2022
Decision date: 15 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Perry
Panel members: Mr J Wagstaffe, Mr P Tsouvallaris

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Her aunt [name redacted] a lay representative For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting as a full panel of Employment Judge Perry with Mr J Wagstaffe (attending by CVP) and Mr P Tsouvallaris, heard the claim over seven days between 29 January and 14 May 2024 at Centre City Tower, Birmingham. The claimant was represented by her aunt as a lay representative and the respondent by Ms A Palmer of counsel.

The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint that she had been harassed contrary to sections 26 and 40 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment was signed by Employment Judge Perry on 15 May 2024. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not to be provided unless requested within 14 days.

The claimant was awarded a total of £17,665.19. This comprised £242.50 for agreed financial loss with £19.40 interest, £13,500.00 for injury to feelings, £1,500.00 in aggravated damages, and £2,403.29 interest on the injury to feelings and aggravated damages components.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Harassment	Tribunal found the claimant was harassed contrary to sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010. The PDF text is a short judgment record with no written reasons; the harassment is recorded against the Equality Act without an explicit named protected characteristic in this document, but the gov.uk listing categorises the case as Sex Discrimination and s.26 EqA harassment requires a relevant protected characteristic, so 'sex' is recorded with reduced confidence.	Upheld	Sex	£17,665

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £17,665; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £243; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.