Case 2202003/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Sylvester v I-Movexpress Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202003/2019
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms J Griffiths, Dr V Weerasinghe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Sylvester
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal complaints under ss.99 and 104 ERA 1996, the complaint under s.57B ERA 1996 about refusal of time off under s.57A, the direct and indirect discrimination complaints based on sex and race, and the harassment complaints based on sex and race. The breach of contract claim was withdrawn. The only successful liability finding was that the dismissal on 25 February 2019 was an act of victimisation under s.39(4)(c) Equality Act 2010. Other victimisation complaints, including allegations about references and post-termination conduct, were dismissed.
On remedy, the tribunal found the claimant was on a trial period from 1 February 2019 to 30 April 2019 and, absent the Equality Act breach, her employment would in any event have ended by no later than 29 April 2019. It found a significant likelihood that the respondent would have terminated the employment sooner for non-discriminatory capability and trust reasons after the claimant's 11:01am email on 25 February 2019, but not immediately on 22 February 2019. It therefore limited financial loss to the period before 30 April 2019 and declined to award any loss after that date.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant made the tampering allegations in good faith and genuinely believed files and electronic documents were being tampered with, but it found that none of the respondent's employees were doing so and that no one was attempting to frame her. It also rejected her arguments about delayed issue of the contract, criticism of her work, the reason for termination, and the alleged refusal or adverse handling of reference requests. Those rejected matters were excluded from the injury to feelings assessment.
For financial loss, the tribunal awarded £1,580.38. It used net weekly pay of £516.94, treated the week 5 to 11 March 2019 as fully recoverable, then awarded 50% of the loss for 12 March to 8 April 2019 and 10% of the loss for 9 to 29 April 2019, after offsetting Universal Credit where applicable. It awarded interest of £236.58 on that financial loss. For injury to feelings, it applied the Vento approach, placed the case in the lower band at the upper end because it was a one-off act with comparatively short-term effects, and awarded £7,000 plus £1,103.13 interest. The total award was £9,920.09.
Claims and outcomes
12 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 | s.99 ERA 1996 unfair dismissal complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | s.104 ERA 1996 unfair dismissal complaint dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | s.57B ERA 1996 complaint that the respondent unreasonably refused time off under s.57A dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claimant withdrew the breach of contract claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct discrimination because of sex dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination because of race dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect discrimination because of sex dismissed. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,920
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,580
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2)
- Da'Bell v NSPCC
- Simmons v Castle
- De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd
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.