Case 2216676/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Trayers (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216676/2023
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr R Baber, Mr P Lewis
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs Trayers (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded Ms M Postol's claims against Kens Estate Limited and Frontive Holdings Services Limited as direct disability discrimination, disability-related harassment, victimisation, failure to make reasonable adjustments, constructive unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal. The decision states that direct disability discrimination was not upheld, victimisation was not upheld, disability-related harassment was partially upheld by reference to LOI [p119-121 hearing bundle] incidents 3.2.7, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.2.11, 3.2.12 and 3.2.14, and failure to make reasonable adjustments was upheld.
The tribunal also upheld the Claimant's constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. The record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested, so the extracted decision contains only the dispositive outcomes and the incident references for the harassment finding. No monetary award is set out in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment was partially upheld by reference to LOI [p119-121 hearing bundle] incidents 3.2.7, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.2.11, 3.2.12 and 3.2.14. | Other | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was upheld. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal was upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal was upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
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.