Case 1311077/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Crosby v Next Retail Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1311077/2020
- Decision date
- 11 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Ms R Addison, Mr P Tsouvallaris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Crosby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant's complaints of harassment related to disability under section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed following withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not contravene section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against the Claimant because of something arising in consequence of her disability, and those complaints were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and that her unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded. It awarded compensation for unfair dismissal totaling £10,080.06, made up of a basic award of £6,376.50 and a compensatory award of £3,703.56.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaints of harassment related to disability contrary to section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal found that the Respondent did not contravene section 39 of the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating because of something arising in consequence of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was found well-founded. | Upheld | — | £10,080 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,080
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,377
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,704
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 40 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 39 of the 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.