Case 1403388/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr Maratos (consultant) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403388/2019
- Decision date
- 28 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
- Panel members
- Mr K J Sleeth, Mr N A Knight
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Southampton on 27 and 28 February 2020, the tribunal, chaired by Employment Judge Gray with members Mr K J Sleeth and Mr N A Knight, determined that the claimant’s complaint of direct sex discrimination failed and was dismissed. The judgment does not record any separate remedy for that claim.
The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,073.39 in total, comprising a compensatory award of £1,512.39 for the unfair dismissal claim and a separate award of £561 for failure to give a written statement of particulars of employment.
The compensatory award was broken down in the reasons given orally at the hearing. It included six weeks’ loss of earnings and pension contributions calculated at £252.26 plus £6.50 per week, less earnings in mitigation of £557.17, resulting in £995.39, together with £17 for job-seeking expenses and £500 for loss of statutory employment rights. The written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a compensatory award of £1,512.39. | Upheld | — | £1,512 |
| Other | Award for failure to give a written statement of particulars of employment, assessed at two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £561 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,073
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,512
- 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.