Case 2202096/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Watson v London Borough of Camden — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202096/2019
- Decision date
- 11 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms S Boyce, Ms J Cameron
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London Central before Employment Judge Quill with Ms S Boyce and Ms J Cameron, heard the case on 7, 10 and 11 February 2020. Its unanimous judgment was that the Respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment in relation to the Claimant's parking on the estates within his day-time patch, because he was not allowed to park there without the possibility of having to pay a parking fine.
The claim was therefore upheld as a disability discrimination matter. The judgment records no separate liability findings beyond that reasonable-adjustment failure and gives no written reasons because reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
As a remedy, the tribunal awarded the Claimant £9,500 for injury to feelings. No other remedy components are identified in the written judgment, and the total award recorded is £9,500.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the Respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment by failing to allow the Claimant to park on the estates within his day-time patch without the possibility of having to pay a parking fine. | Upheld | Disability | £9,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,500
- 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.