Case 1404116/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Vincent Callow (HR Manager) Page 2 of 3 — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404116/2020
- Decision date
- 5 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr D.
- Panel members
- Ms S. Maidment, Dr Hole
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Claimant succeeded in her claim for indirect discrimination on the ground of sex and also succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal. The written judgment records those outcomes without setting out the tribunal's oral reasons in detail, and it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing on 5 October 2021.
The tribunal awarded the Claimant a total of £8,314.66. The judgment records a basic award of £2,187.50 and a compensatory award of £4,127.16. The compensatory award comprised £3,625.00 for past loss of earnings, £2.16 for interest on that loss, and £500.00 for loss of employment rights.
The judgment also awards £2,000.00 for injury to feelings. The written judgment does not apportion the overall sum between the two successful claims, so the monetary figures are recorded as a single aggregate award rather than as claim-specific remedies.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant succeeded in her claim for indirect discrimination on the ground of sex. The written judgment does not split the monetary award between the claims. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal. The written judgment does not split the monetary award between the claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,315
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,188
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,127
- 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.