Case 2304021/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Caisley v Kent Coach Travel Limited t/a Travelmasters — 2026
- Case reference
- 2304021/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Caisley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Caisley, worked for Kent Coach Travel Limited t/a Travelmasters as a bus driver from 2 February 2023 to 28 May 2023. The respondent did not attend and did not file a response. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' service, and dismissed the statutory sick pay claim because entitlement to SSP is for HMRC to determine and the tribunal had no jurisdiction. Several housing-related matters were also said to be outside Employment Tribunal jurisdiction and were not determined.
On the money claims, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had accrued 1.78 weeks of statutory holiday during a 116-day period of employment, that his weekly pay was £408, and that he was not paid for accrued but untaken holiday on leaving. It awarded £726.24 for holiday pay. It also accepted that he had worked an additional week for which he was not paid at termination, and awarded £408 as an unauthorised deduction from wages because the respondent had shown no statutory or contractual basis for withholding it.
On disability, the tribunal found that the claimant's ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia met the section 6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability. It accepted that the respondent knew about those conditions from the interview and from the later request to rewrite illegible notes, and it did not treat EDNOS as relevant to the claim. The tribunal found two PCPs: requiring the claimant to rewrite notes after his shift without paid time or support, and requiring him to use paper maps or an untrained satnav on rail-replacement routes. Those PCPs placed him at a substantial disadvantage, the respondent took no reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage, and the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim succeeded.
For remedy, the tribunal applied the lower Vento band. It found no financial loss on the discrimination claim but accepted injury to feelings caused by the treatment during and after employment. It awarded £2,500 for injury to feelings and £555.07 interest at 8% from 28 May 2023 to 6 March 2026, producing a total award of £3,055.07.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the required two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Statutory sick pay claim; dismissed because the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine SSP entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for unpaid accrued but untaken holiday pay on leaving employment. | Upheld | — | £726 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for one week's wages that had not been paid at termination. | Upheld | — | £408 |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded; award comprised £2,500 injury to feelings plus £555.07 interest. | Upheld | Disability | £3,055 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,055
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- Vento bands
- Taylor Gordon & Co Ltd (t/a Plan Personnel) v Timmons
- Sarti (Sauchiehall St) Ltd v Polito
- Regulation 6(1)(a) of the applicable Regulations
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.