Case 1405459/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P. Sayers (Solicitor) v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1405459/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Bodmin
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr P. Sayers (Solicitor)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Bodmin on 17, 18 and 21 October 2022, Employment Judge Smail gave oral reasons and entered judgment for the claimant only to the extent of an award of £84.28. The tribunal found that the respondent must pay that sum within 14 days in respect of owed DPM allowance.
The judgment states that all other claims were dismissed. On the face of the case listing, those other claims included unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, but the short extracted reasons do not give separate findings on each claim or any detailed explanation for the dismissals.
No separate remedy breakdown is provided beyond the £84.28 awarded for the unpaid allowance. The judgment therefore records a limited monetary award only, with no basic award, compensatory award, injury to feelings or interest figure identified in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that all other claims were dismissed, but does not separately set out the disability discrimination claim in the short extracted reasons. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that all other claims were dismissed, but does not separately set out the unfair dismissal claim in the short extracted reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of £84.28 in respect of owed DPM allowance. | Upheld | — | £84 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £84
- across all upheld claims
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.