Case 1403175/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Thomas v T&R Direct Insurance Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403175/2022
- Decision date
- 1 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horder
- Venue
- Southampton ET
- Panel members
- Ms C Date, Mr K Sleeth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Southampton on 16 to 19 October 2023 before Employment Judge Horder with Ms C Date and Mr K Sleeth, unanimously held that Miss H Thomas had been constructively dismissed and that her dismissal was unfair. The judgment does not set out a separate remedy in the extracted text provided.
The tribunal also found that the claimant’s claim of discrimination arising from disability under Equality Act 2010 s.15 was well founded. That claim succeeded in respect of the allegations identified at paragraph 1 a, b, c, and f of the list of issues.
In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant’s claim of harassment related to disability under Equality Act 2010 s.26 was well founded. That claim also succeeded in respect of allegations at paragraph 1 a, b, c, and f of the list of issues.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal said the claim of discrimination arising from disability under Equality Act 2010 s.15 was well founded and succeeded in respect of allegations at paragraph 1 a, b, c, and f of the list of issues. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal said the claim of harassment related to disability under Equality Act 2010 s.26 was well founded and succeeded in respect of allegations at paragraph 1 a, b, c, and f of the list of issues. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.