Case 1404855/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v University of Southampton — 2019
- Case reference
- 1404855/2018
- Decision date
- 5 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton on 5 June 2019, Employment Judge Emerton sitting alone entered judgment under rule 21 after the respondent did not present a response and was not represented. The tribunal found wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal, failure to pay holiday pay, direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief and race, harassment related to religion or belief and race, and victimisation well founded. It also said the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £12,552.60 for wrongful dismissal notice pay and, because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, increased that sum by 25% to £15,690.75. For unfair dismissal it awarded a basic award of £9,652.00 and a compensatory award of £500.00 for loss of statutory rights, uplifted by 25% to £625.00. It also awarded £7,945.50 for holiday pay outstanding at termination, uplifted by 25% to £9,931.88.
The discrimination compensation was awarded in several heads. The tribunal awarded £31,000 for injury to feelings, £27,450 for personal injury, £489,937.08 for losses to date, and £1,148,076.72 for future losses; each was increased by 25% under the ACAS uplift to £38,750.00, £34,312.50, £612,421.35, and £1,435,095.90 respectively. The losses to date were said to include unpaid holiday pay from previous years, salary, pension, increased travel costs, unpaid expenses, job-hunting expenses, lack of promotion opportunity, and loss of sabbaticals. Interest was awarded on the discrimination sums in the amounts of £28,587.95, £12,657.08, and £225,907.97. The tribunal said the non-taxable element of compensation, including injury to feelings, personal injury and the associated interest awards, totalled £114,307.53, and it grossed up the remaining balance for tax purposes before stating that the total compensation payable after grossing up was £3,449,328.54.
Under section 124(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal recommended that the respondent give the claimant access to all emails sent to or received by his Southampton University email address.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay awarded at £12,552.60 and increased by 25% under the ACAS Code of Practice to £15,690.75. | Upheld | — | £15,691 |
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £9,652.00 plus a compensatory award of £500.00 for loss of statutory rights, with the compensatory award uplifted by 25% to £625.00. | Upheld | — | £10,277 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay outstanding at termination for the current leave year; £7,945.50 increased by 25%. | Upheld | — | £9,932 |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct religion or belief discrimination. The discrimination compensation was not apportioned by individual discrimination claim. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination. The discrimination compensation was not apportioned by individual discrimination claim. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Indirect religion or belief discrimination. The discrimination compensation was not apportioned by individual discrimination claim. | Upheld | Religion or belief | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,449,329
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,652
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £625
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- ACAS Code of Practice
- section 124(2)(c) 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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.