Case 1404714/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Denney, Claimant’s Husband For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404714/2021
- Decision date
- 4 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Denney, Claimant’s Husband For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mrs B Denney's equal pay claim against the Office for National Statistics. It found that her work was equal to that of her comparator, Mr M Yates, between 30 March 2021 and 2 July 2021 within the meaning of section 65 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also found that the respondent had not proved a material factor defence within the meaning of section 69 Equality Act 2010.
By agreement between the parties, the respondent was ordered to pay £2,516.60 in respect of pay inequality. Interest at 8% per annum was awarded in the sum of £199.10, calculated from the mid-point of the period between 30 March 2021 and 23 March 2023, the hearing date. The total amount payable was £2,715.70. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,517 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,716
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 65 Equality Act 2010
- material factor defence
- section 69 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.