Case 2200315/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Agar v Allspring Global Investments (UK) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200315/2023
- Decision date
- 17 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr P Alleyne, Mr J Carroll
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Agar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Nash and lay members Mr P Alleyne and Mr J Carroll, found that Mr Agar was unfairly dismissed under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It rejected his claim that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed under section 99 of the 1996 Act.
The tribunal also rejected the claim that the respondent subjected him to a detriment for taking or seeking to take adoption leave under section 47C(2)(ba) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It further dismissed the direct discrimination claims for age, sexual orientation, and sex, together with the victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
This written record sets out the outcomes only and does not provide the tribunal's reasons. On remedy, the judgment records that, without reference to the parties' positions on liability, the respondent would pay the claimant £93,878.00 by consent.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found unfairly dismissed under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the allegation of automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Parental leave | The tribunal rejected the claim that the respondent subjected the claimant to detrimental treatment for taking or seeking to take adoption leave under section 47C(2)(ba) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination under sections 5 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was rejected. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Direct sexual orientation discrimination under sections 12 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was rejected. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under sections 11 and 13 of the Equality Act 2010 was rejected. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £93,878
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 47C(2)(ba) Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 5 and 13 Equality Act 2010
- sections 12 and 13 Equality Act 2010
- sections 11 and 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
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.