Case 2300036/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs W MacBride v Papillon Home Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300036/2021
- Decision date
- 13 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Venue
- Ashford
- Panel members
- Mr M Cann, Ms R Effeny
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs W MacBride
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Ashford on 10-12 July 2023, a panel comprising Employment Judge Corrigan, Mr M Cann and Ms R Effeny heard Mrs W MacBride's claims against Papillon Home Care Limited. The tribunal held that the respondent contravened the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the claim of discrimination arising from disability, and it dismissed the separate claim of direct disability discrimination.
The tribunal ordered compensation of £13,295.09. The award consisted of £1,982.72 net SSP, interest of £243.79 on that sum for the period 29 December 2021 to 12 July 2023, £9,000 for injury to feelings, and £2,068.58 interest on the injury to feelings award for the period 28 August 2020 to 12 July 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | Claim of discrimination arising from disability succeeded; the tribunal ordered compensation of £13,295.09. | Upheld | Disability | £13,295 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination claim dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,295
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,983
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.