Case 2219545/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Ms H Grunden, claimant’s partner For the v Mr P Sands, solicitor — 2025

Case reference: 2219545/2024
Decision date: 24 April 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Lewis
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Ms G Carpenter, Ms J Marshall

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms H Grunden, claimant’s partner For the

Respondent

Mr P Sands, solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's dismissal was discrimination arising from disability contrary to s15 of the Equality Act 2010. It did not uphold the separate claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.

The tribunal awarded £24,800.36. The calculation was set out as net loss of earnings for March to May 2024 after deduction of Universal Credit and notice pay (£2,744.94), 25% of net loss of earnings for June to August 2024 (£632.75), 8% interest on past financial loss from termination to the calculation date (£153.25), injury to feelings (£19,500), and 8% interest on injury to feelings from the midway point (£1,769.42).

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This 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	The tribunal unanimously held that the claimant's dismissal was discrimination arising from disability contrary to s15 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal awarded £24,800.36 in compensation.	Upheld	Disability	£24,800
Disability discrimination	The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments was not upheld.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £24,800; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £22,878; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.