Case 2304684/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr R Saunders, Managing Director — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304684/2019
- Decision date
- 19 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
- Panel members
- Ms G Mitchell, Mr M Marenda
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South before Employment Judge K Andrews with Ms G Mitchell and Mr M Marenda, unanimously dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination claims. It held that the claims of discrimination arising from disability and breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments failed.
The tribunal also dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim, but upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It awarded a basic award calculated as 6 x £444 = £2,664, then reduced it by 75% for contributory fault to £666. The tribunal made no compensatory award, stating that this was to reflect that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed, and the total award was £666.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim of discrimination arising from disability failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim for breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant succeeded on unfair dismissal. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,664, reduced by 75% for contributory fault to £666, and made no compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £666 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £666
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £666
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.