Case 2202255/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A S Koffi v Permanent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202255/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris RESERVED
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A S Koffi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the Respondent's failure to respond to the claim or comply with an Unless Order, default judgment was entered on 4 March 2020 in the Claimant's favour on her complaints of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination/harassment and religion or belief discrimination. The remedy hearing took place by CVP on 8 July 2020 before Employment Judge Norris, sitting alone, with the Respondent neither present nor represented. The Claimant gave unchallenged evidence on remedy, and a preliminary issue concerning the lawfulness of her employment in light of unpaid UK tax was resolved in her favour on the basis of an applicable UK-Cote d'Ivoire tax treaty and that any illegality lay with the Respondent.
On remedy, the Tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,048 and assessed past loss, capped at the statutory annual salary figure of £39,240, leaving a past-loss shortfall of £1,887.92 after deduction of mitigation earnings. The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant was likely to mitigate her loss within six months and awarded future losses of £20,820.02. No uplift was applied under s.207A TULRCA 1992 because the ACAS Code of Practice was not engaged on the facts.
For injury to feelings arising from the sex discrimination and harassment, the Tribunal placed the case in the middle of the middle Vento band, awarding £17,750 uplifted by 10% under Simmons v Castle to £19,305, with interest at 8% per annum on financial loss (£2,420.37) and on injury to feelings (£3,664.25). No award was made for the religion or belief discrimination claim because no particulars or losses were advanced. After grossing up for tax, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £101,853.07.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Default judgment entered after the Respondent failed to file a response or comply with an Unless Order. Basic award £3,048 plus past loss shortfall £1,887.92 and future losses £20,820.02 (compensatory total £22,707.94 before grossing up); compensatory award after grossing up reflected in overall total. | Upheld | — | £64,929 |
| Sex discrimination | Sex discrimination/harassment found; injury to feelings of £17,750 uplifted by 10% (Simmons v Castle) to £19,305 plus interest of £3,664.25, awarded in connection with sex discrimination/harassment. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Persistent sexual harassment by Mr Touré between February 2018 and January 2019. Remedy awarded jointly with the sex discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 (ss.13 and 26). | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Default judgment entered on liability, but the Tribunal made no award for religion or belief discrimination because the Claimant gave no details of either the discrimination suffered or the losses incurred. | Upheld | Religion or belief | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £101,853
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,048
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £61,881
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- Simmons v Castle
- De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 879
- Prison Service v Johnson [1997] ICR 275
- Vento bands (Presidential Guidance, Second Addendum)
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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.