Case 1600253/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Larcombe v Slowhit (FS) Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600253/2018
- Decision date
- 23 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Larcombe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Moore in favour of Miss M Larcombe against Slowhit (FS) Ltd. The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £323.08 in damages. It also ordered an uplift of £80.77 for failure to follow the ACAS Code under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The judgment also recorded that the disability discrimination claim succeeded. No monetary remedy for that claim was fixed in this judgment; the tribunal stated that remedy would be determined at a Remedy Hearing. The judgment was sent to the parties on 23 July 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered damages of £323.08, with an ACAS Code uplift of £80.77 under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Upheld | — | £323 |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim succeeded, but the remedy was left to be determined at a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £404
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £323
- 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.