Case 2302306/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Caller For the v Mr L Lewis-Nunn — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302306/2020
- Decision date
- 23 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
- Venue
- LONDON SOUTH
- Panel members
- Ms J Jerram, Mr R Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Caller For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr D Ervin’s unfair dismissal claim succeeded. It awarded a basic award of £1,076 and a compensatory award of £3,003.24, and then applied a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, making a total award for unfair dismissal of £5,099.05.
The claim for breach of contract in relation to notice pay and the unlawful deduction from wages claim in relation to January commission were dismissed upon withdrawal. Separately, by consent the tribunal recorded unlawful deductions from wages and awarded £797.29 gross, comprising statutory sick pay of £377 and commission for February 2020 of £420.29. The unlawful deduction claim in relation to a £500 car deposit did not succeed. By consent, the claimant was also awarded £375.48 gross for three days of accrued annual leave not taken at the date of termination.
The claim for disability-related discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 did not succeed and was dismissed. The tribunal recorded a total sum awarded to the claimant of £6,271.82. It also ordered the respondent to pay costs of £3,595.70 because it had acted disruptively and unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings, and imposed a penalty of £3,135.91 to the Secretary of State under section 12A(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,076 and a compensatory award of £3,003.24, then applied a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. | Upheld | — | £5,099 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim in relation to January 2020 commission was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | By consent, the tribunal recorded unlawful deductions from wages and awarded £797.29 gross, comprising statutory sick pay of £377 and commission for February 2020 of £420.29. | Upheld | — | £797 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim in relation to a £500 car deposit did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the claimant was awarded £375.48 gross for three days of accrued annual leave not taken at termination. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,272
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,076
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,003
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 12A(4) Employment Tribunals 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.