Case 1803389/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. R Seymour v One Call Insurance Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803389/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley
- Panel members
- Mr. Brewer, Mr. Weller
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. R Seymour
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case, heard at Leeds Employment Tribunal by CVP on 7 and 8 March 2022 before Employment Judge Buckley sitting with Mr Brewer and Mr Weller, concerned claims by Mr R Seymour against One Call Insurance Services Limited. The tribunal held that the claim for breach of contract succeeded and awarded the claimant £1,465.44 gross in compensation.
The tribunal also found that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded, but it made no award of compensation for unlawful deductions. The judgment further recorded that the recoupment regulations did not apply.
Two disability-related claims were dismissed: failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability. The judgment does not set out any further factual findings or reasoning beyond those outcomes.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract succeeded and the respondent was ordered to pay £1,465.44 gross in compensation. | Upheld | — | £1,465 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unlawful deduction from wages succeeded, but the judgment recorded no award of compensation for unlawful deductions. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The claim for harassment related to disability was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,465
- across all upheld claims
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.