Case 2200983/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr J Davies — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200983/2022
- Decision date
- 6 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr J Carroll, Ms S Darmas
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Webster and lay members Mr J Carroll and Ms S Darmas, gave oral reasons at the hearing and issued a short written judgment on 6 July 2023. The Claimant was in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr J Davies.
The claim for harassment related to disability was not upheld, so the discrimination complaint failed. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was also not upheld.
The Claimant succeeded only on the holiday pay element. The tribunal upheld the claim for 1.5 days' holiday pay and ordered payment of £144.
The wrongful dismissal claim was upheld, but the tribunal found that the Claimant had failed to establish any loss and therefore made no award of damages on that claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the Claimant's claim for harassment related to disability was not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the Claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claim for 1.5 days holiday pay was upheld and £144 was to be paid. | Upheld | — | £144 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that wrongful dismissal was upheld, but the Claimant failed to establish any loss and was awarded no damages. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £144
- 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.