Case 2301264/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Franklin-Maskell v Paul Morrison — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301264/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Franklin-Maskell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Youngs, sitting alone at London South by video on 17 March 2025, determined the Claimant's claims in the Respondent's absence. The Claimant succeeded on his claim for constructive wrongful dismissal (notice pay) and was awarded £198.13 calculated on gross pay to reflect likely tax treatment as Post Employment Notice Pay. Claims for holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (£512.17), unlawful deductions from wages (£865.01), failure to pay statutory sick pay (£96.35) and non-payment of travel time (£2,071) also succeeded.
The tribunal found that, when the proceedings began, the Respondent was in breach of the duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars and, no exceptional circumstances having been advanced, made an award equal to two weeks' gross pay (£396.26) under section 38 Employment Act 2002. It also recorded that the Respondent failed to provide written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 between 13 May 2022 and 27 October 2022.
The Claimant was found to have been disabled at the material time by reason of ADHD and, separately, by reason of Stress Related Muscular Tension. His disability discrimination claim, comprising failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability, succeeded, and he was awarded £5,000 by way of injury to feelings. Reasons were given orally; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability and harassment relating to disability; £5,000 awarded by way of injury to feelings. Claimant found disabled by reason of ADHD and, separately, Stress Related Muscular Tension. | Upheld | Disability | £5,000 |
| Unfair dismissal | Although the gov.uk listing includes unfair dismissal, the written judgment text adjudicates only constructive wrongful (notice pay) dismissal and does not record a separate determination on statutory unfair dismissal. Written reasons were not provided. Outcome set to 'other' with reduced confidence. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award: Respondent in breach of duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars; no exceptional circumstances put forward; award equal to two weeks' gross pay (£396.26). | Upheld | — | £396 |
| Other | Declaration that the Respondent failed to give the Claimant written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 in the period 13 May 2022 to 27 October 2022. No separate monetary award attached in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim framed as 'constructive wrongful dismissal' (notice pay); damages calculated on gross pay to reflect likely tax treatment as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £198 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,139
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.