Case 2301258/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Lawrence Second Claimant: Mrs P Lawrence v Mr X Yu — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301258/2023
- Decision date
- 20 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Panel members
- Mrs Sally Goldthorpe, Mr Stephen Huggins
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Lawrence Second Claimant: Mrs P Lawrence
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Ashford by video on 5 to 8 August 2024 before Employment Judge Robinson, with Mrs Sally Goldthorpe and Mr Stephen Huggins sitting as lay members. The Second Claimant withdrew all of her claims, and the Tribunal dismissed those claims on withdrawal. The Respondent was Mr X Yu.
For the First Claimant, the Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal, unauthorized deduction from wages, and notice pay claims as not well-founded. It also dismissed the direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment claims.
The discrimination claims were dismissed on the basis stated in the judgment that they were either out of time and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time, or they were not well-founded. The written record does not set out further reasons.
The Tribunal separately found that the First Claimant had accrued but untaken holiday at the time of her resignation and ordered the Respondent to pay her £123.50 gross, subject to any tax and national insurance contributions due.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | All claims made by the Second Claimant were dismissed upon withdrawal by the Second Claimant. The judgment does not specify the individual claim types. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The First Claimant's unfair dismissal claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The First Claimant's unauthorized deduction from wages claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The First Claimant's notice pay claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The First Claimant's direct disability discrimination claim was dismissed because it was either out of time and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time, or it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The First Claimant's failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed because it was either out of time and the Tribunal did not consider it just and equitable to extend time, or it was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £124
- 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.