Case 1804862/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Powell v One Call Claims Limited Heard: In Sheffield — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804862/2021
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr MD Firkin, Mr L Priestley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Powell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 25 May 2022, sitting in Sheffield before Employment Judge JM Wade with Mr MD Firkin and Mr L Priestley, the tribunal held that Miss R Powell's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. It also held that her indirect sex discrimination complaint succeeded.
The tribunal ordered One Call Claims Limited to pay a basic award of £857.28 and a compensatory award of £8,196.08. It stated that the recoupment regulations did not apply to those awards.
The tribunal further ordered the respondent to pay £7,000 as an award for injury to feelings and £360 in interest. The total sum payable was £16,413.36.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. The awards recorded against it were a basic award of £857.28 and a compensatory award of £8,196.08. | Upheld | — | £9,053 |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment describes this as indirect sex discrimination. The awards recorded for this claim were £7,000 for injury to feelings and £360 in interest. | Upheld | Sex | £7,360 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,413
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £857
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,196
- 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.