Case 1601166/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Professor A Bonsall-Redston v We are Couch Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1601166/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Harfield
- Panel members
- Ms Y Neves, Ms G Rees
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Professor A Bonsall-Redston
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy judgment by Employment Judge R Harfield with members Ms Y Neves and Ms G Rees, following an earlier liability judgment in which one complaint of harassment related to disability had been upheld against the First Respondent (We are Couch Limited) and the Third Respondent (Ms L Jones). The remaining complaints (further harassment, discrimination arising from disability, direct sex discrimination, victimisation, holiday pay, deduction from wages and breach of contract) had been dismissed at the liability stage.
The Tribunal applied the Vento bands as adjusted by Presidential Guidance and the principles in Armitage, Marsden and HM Prison Service v Johnson, Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (No.2) and Eddie Stobbart Ltd v Graham. It awarded £4,000 for injury to feelings and £500.73 interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996.
The claim for aggravated damages was refused. The Tribunal applied principles from Alexander v Home Office and Base Childrenswear v Otshudi and considered, among other things, a phone call between Mr Lucey and the claimant's husband; on the balance of probabilities the Tribunal did not find the call intimidatory or oppressive.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Remedy judgment following earlier liability finding of one complaint of harassment related to disability against R1 (We are Couch Limited) and R3 (Ms L Jones). Found to be non-intentional. Injury to feelings £4,000 plus £500.73 interest. Aggravated damages refused. | Upheld | Disability | £4,501 |
| Harassment | Other harassment-related-to-disability complaints not upheld at the liability hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability complaint not upheld at the liability hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination complaint not upheld at the liability hearing. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint not upheld at the liability hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint not upheld at the liability hearing. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,501
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 124 Equality Act 2010
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No.2) [2003] IRLR 102
- Armitage, Marsden and HM Prison Service v Johnson [1997] IRLR 162
- De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd [2017] IRLR 844
- Taylor v XLN [2010] ICR 656
- Eddie Stobbart Limited v Graham [2025] EAT 14
- Shakil v Samsons Ltd [2024] EAT 192
- Alexander v Home Office [1988] ICR 685
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Shaw UKEAT/0125/11/ZT
- Base Childrenswear Limited v Otshudi UKEAT/0267/18
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
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.