Case 1801339/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S J Austin v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust — 2018
- Case reference
- 1801339/2017
- Decision date
- 9 May 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mrs LJ Anderson-Coe, Mr M Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S J Austin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe liability tribunal had found that the claimant had depression, anxiety and fibromyalgia, and that behaviours leading to suspension and dismissal arose from disability. It found the claimant's conduct was not culpable or blameworthy, that dismissal was unfair, that summary dismissal breached her contractual right to notice, and that the respondent had not shown suspension or dismissal were proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
On remedy, the tribunal rejected the respondent's mitigation arguments for the period to the hearing. It accepted that the claimant had applied for many jobs, that her health and psychological barriers affected her job search, and that the respondent's reference stating dismissal for gross misconduct for breach of confidentiality was an obstacle. It also found her decision to retrain as a hairdresser was not unreasonable in her circumstances.
The tribunal awarded notice pay, a basic award for unfair dismissal, loss of statutory rights, past and future financial losses, CBT costs, pension loss, injury to feelings and personal injury. It treated the claimant's pension loss as a complex, career-long loss, subject to deductions for likely replacement pension provision, and applied interest and grossing up for tax.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The liability tribunal found unfair dismissal. The remedy judgment records a basic award for unfair dismissal, while past and future earnings losses were awarded under discrimination legislation to avoid double recovery. | Upheld | — | £8,470 |
| Disability discrimination | The liability tribunal found the suspension and dismissal were discrimination arising from disability. The remedy judgment ordered compensation for disability discrimination including interest. | Upheld | Disability | £265,719 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract in respect of notice, based on 12 weeks' net pay. | Upheld | — | £3,395 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £269,114
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,470
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
23 references- Ministry of Defence v Cannock
- section 126 Employment Rights Act 1996
- D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth
- Archbold Freightage Ltd v Wilson
- Simrad Ltd v Scott
- Wardle v Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank
- Singh v Glass Express Midlands Limited
- Cooper Contracting Ltd v Lindsey
- eggshell skull principle
- ICTS (UK) Ltd v Tchoula
- Ur-Rehman v Ahmad
- Newsome v Sunderland City Council
- Employment Tribunals - Principles for Compensating Pension Loss
- section 124 Equality Act 2010
- section 119 Equality Act 2010
- Prison Service v Johnson
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2)
- Da'Bell v NSPCC
- Simmons v Castle
- De Souza v Vinci Construction
- Essa v Laing Ltd
- Base Childrenswear v Otshudi
- Moorthy v Revenue & Customs
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.