Case 1600294/2019 · Employment Tribunal
J Turley v S D Wright trading as EEZIVAPE — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600294/2019
- Decision date
- 31 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge RF Powell
- Venue
- Mold
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Turley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy judgment in J Turley v S D Wright trading as EEZIVAPE, heard at Mold on 10 December 2019 before Employment Judge RF Powell. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had succeeded in claims described as discrimination during his employment and discrimination in his dismissal. The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the remedy hearing.
The tribunal ordered a basic award of £296.10, £500.00 for loss of statutory rights, £13,000.00 for injury to feelings, £1,099.85 interest on that part of the award, £36,998.00 for loss of income consequent to dismissal, and £2,146.16 interest on that award. The judgment does not break down which sums were attributable to each liability finding. The order was dated 29 December 2019 and sent to the parties on 31 December 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The remedy judgment refers generally to discrimination during employment and dismissal; the sex characteristic is taken from the case listing because it is not restated in the remedy text. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The remedy judgment awards a basic award, compensation for loss of statutory rights, compensation for loss of income consequent to dismissal, and interest. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £54,040
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £296
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £37,498
- 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.