Case 1400285/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Sale v Bournemouth Transport Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400285/2022
- Decision date
- 18 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mrs D England, Mr D Stewart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Sale
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr C Sale was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, including on the date of his dismissal. On that basis, his claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010 for discrimination arising from disability succeeded, and the tribunal made a declaration to that effect.
His unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The only financial remedy recorded was a basic award of £2,597.04. The judgment states that no further remedy was sought by the claimant, so no compensatory award, injury to feelings award, or interest is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, including the date of dismissal, and that his section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim for discrimination arising from disability succeeded. The taxonomy does not include a separate section 15 category, so this is mapped to discrimination_disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and ordered payment of a basic award of £2,597.04. | Upheld | — | £2,597 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,597
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,597
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.