Case 2301839/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Anna Stewart v Lp Sd Seventy Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2301839/2024
- Decision date
- 19 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anna Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Anna Stewart, brought complaints of direct age discrimination and harassment related to age against LP SD Seventy Limited. The hearing took place at Croydon by CVP on 18 and 19 February 2026 before Employment Judge Lumby, with the claimant in person and the respondent represented by Mr C Firmin, Litigation Consultant.
The tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct age discrimination as not well-founded. One complaint of harassment related to age, arising from comments made by the pharmacist on 3 November 2024, was found to be well-founded and succeeded. The remaining complaints of harassment related to age were dismissed as not well-founded.
By way of remedy, the tribunal recorded that the respondent shall pay the claimant the sum of £2,000 as agreed compensation. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within the prescribed period.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age arising from comments made by the pharmacist on 3 November 2024 was well-founded and succeeded. The £2,000 was recorded by the tribunal as agreed compensation. | Upheld | Age | £2,000 |
| Harassment | The remaining complaints of harassment related to age were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- 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.