Case 1405804/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Loch-Henry v Unite Telecoms Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1405804/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Loch-Henry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remedy hearing in Southampton on 13 January 2023, before Employment Judge Dawson, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal recorded that, in respect of the disability discrimination claim, the claimant was awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings, together with £2,949.04 interest on that award, £8,879.00 for loss of earnings, £1,446.10 interest on the earnings loss, £198 for osteopathic treatment, and £38.88 interest on the treatment cost.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £965.58. The judgment states a total award of £29,477.59. The extracted component figures do not exactly reconcile to that total, so the record should be treated as containing a small arithmetic inconsistency in the printed sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings, £2,949.04 interest on that award, £8,879.00 for loss of earnings, £1,446.10 interest on loss of earnings, £198 for osteopathic treatment, and £38.88 interest on treatment. The listed discrimination heads total £28,511.02, while the judgment states a total award of £29,477.59 for the case as a whole. | Upheld | Disability | £28,511 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and was ordered to pay £965.58. | Upheld | — | £966 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,478
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £9,077
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.