Case 2304865/2020 · Employment Tribunal
A A v B and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304865/2020
- Decision date
- 12 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
- Panel members
- Mr T Okitikpi, Mr D Stewart
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 12 December 2023, the tribunal at London South (Croydon), sitting as a unanimous panel with Employment Judge Wright and lay members Mr T Okitikpi and Mr D Stewart, held that the claimant's claims under the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well founded and were dismissed. The extracted judgment does not identify the specific Equality Act characteristic or set out further reasoning beyond the summary disposition.
The tribunal nevertheless declared that the claimant had not been paid one week's notice pay on termination and was entitled to the gross sum of £780. That figure is the only monetary amount stated in the judgment text.
The tribunal also recorded that it had no jurisdiction over the claim concerning failure to auto-enrol the claimant in accordance with the Pensions Act 2008.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers to claims under the Equality Act 2010, but the extracted text does not identify the specific protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal declared that the claimant had not been paid one week's notice pay on termination and was entitled to the gross sum of £780. | Upheld | — | £780 |
| Other | The tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction over the claim for failure to auto-enrol the claimant under the Pensions Act 2008. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £780
- 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.