Case 1404969/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S. Wells v Cranatt Construction Limited RECORD OF A FINAL HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 1404969/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bowen Tribunal
- Panel members
- Ms J Cusack, Mr H Launder
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Bowen with members Ms J Cusack and Mr H Launder issued a reserved remedy judgment following an earlier liability decision in favour of the claimant. Liability had been established for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal (failure to pay notice) and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 in respect of seven matters including requiring lone working, failure to provide assistance, suspension, the disciplinary process and dismissal.
The Tribunal applied a 15% ACAS uplift on the basis that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, finding inadequate investigation, lack of independence (Mr Powell investigated, conducted the disciplinary and heard the appeal), failure to share evidence with the claimant, and pre-determination. Interest was awarded at 8% under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996.
The total award, after grossing up £8,580.67 for tax on the excess over £30,000, was £72,903.33. The Recoupment Provisions did not apply. PDF text was truncated; some intermediate findings on the schedule of loss were not fully visible.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £17,212 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Upheld | — | £3,337 |
| Disability discrimination | Upheld | Disability | £43,773 |
Legal tests applied
6 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £72,903
- Basic award
- £14,468
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.