Case 1810115/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs S Barnes-Cannadine v JL Health and Beauty Limited t/a Sheffield Sports Medicine — 2019

Case reference: 1810115/2018
Decision date: 8 August 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brain
Venue: Sheffield
Panel members: Mrs J Lee, Mr D Pugh

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs S Barnes-Cannadine

Respondent

JL Health and Beauty Limited t/a Sheffield Sports Medicine

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs S Barnes-Cannadine worked for JL Health and Beauty Limited t/a Sheffield Sports Medicine from 18 June 2018 to 23 July 2018 as a neuro-musculoskeletal physiotherapist. The tribunal accepted that she was a disabled person for Equality Act purposes because of depression and anxiety. It found that before and shortly after she started work, she and Lauren Bray discussed how her 16-hour week would be arranged, and that she was generally to work two days a week, with some variation in hours driven by the respondent's patient demand.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	Resolved by consent; the judgment recorded this as part of the £161.50 agreed payment, with £34.65 identified as unpaid wages.	Settled	—	£35
Holiday pay	Resolved by consent; the judgment recorded this as part of the £161.50 agreed payment, with £126.85 identified as unpaid holiday pay.	Settled	—	£127
Sex discrimination	The tribunal found some less favourable treatment in relation to one comparator issue, but held there was no sex discrimination because the treatment was not because of sex and, on the Water Bumps issue, did not amount to a relevant detriment.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal accepted that the respondent knew of the claimant's disability by 3 July 2018, or at the latest had constructive knowledge by mid-July, but found the disadvantage from variable hours was caused by childcare issues rather than disability.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Harassment	The tribunal accepted that the 20 July 2018 letter was unwanted and had the effect of violating dignity, but held it was not related to disability within section 26 Equality Act 2010 because it was driven by the claimant's absence from work.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £162; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.