Case 2301776/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sarah Synan v ITF Licensing (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301776/2022
- Decision date
- 17 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sarah Synan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Sarah Synan worked for ITF Licensing (UK) Ltd in the wheelchair tennis team. She was dismissed in February 2022 after the respondent introduced a policy that staff who travelled overseas on its behalf had to be double vaccinated against Covid-19. The tribunal found that the relevant reason for dismissal was a combination of her refusal to become vaccinated and the respondent’s view that there was no suitable alternative role or viable modification to her role. The judge treated the case as one of unfair dismissal only, brought under the respondent’s reliance on some other substantial reason.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant’s dismissal was unfair. It awarded a basic award of £1,632 and a compensatory award of £25,833, making a total award of £27,465. | Upheld | — | £27,465 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,465
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,632
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £25,833
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- some other substantial reason (SOSR)
- range of reasonable responses
- Polkey
- contributory fault
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.