Case 1406255/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Brant v Whiteley Village Veterinary Centre Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1406255/2023
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr P English, Mr L Wakeman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Brant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the Claimant's complaint of discrimination arising from disability. The written judgment records only that this claim failed and was dismissed, and it does not set out further written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded to the extent that the tribunal found the Claimant had been procedurally unfairly dismissed. However, the tribunal also found that a fair dismissal would have happened in any event, so the unfair dismissal finding did not lead to a compensatory award. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,480, calculated as 7 x £640, and made no compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's complaint of discrimination arising from disability failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but also found that a fair dismissal would have happened in any event. A basic award of £4,480 was made and no compensatory award was awarded. | Upheld | — | £4,480 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,480
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,480
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- 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.
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.