Case 1401716/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Diana Brown (Mother) v Mr Stephen Mellor (Accountant) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401716/2022
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- Ms R Barrett, Ms R Clarke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Diana Brown (Mother)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination claims upon withdrawal. It found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been paid two weeks of annual/bereavement leave for the weeks ending 2 April 2022 and 9 April 2022, which the respondent had agreed to pay. All other claims were dismissed.
The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £21,322.44, made up of £716 for unpaid annual/bereavement leave, a £10,450 basic award, and a £10,156.44 compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claims of disability discrimination were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment awarded a basic award and compensatory award for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant was not paid two weeks annual/bereavement leave which the respondent had agreed to pay. | Upheld | — | £716 |
| Other | The judgment states that all other claims were dismissed but does not identify them individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,322
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £10,450
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,156
- 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.