Case 2306139/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Tracy Keown v Dr Alma Sarajlic t/a Staines Road Surgery — 2022
- Case reference
- 2306139/2020
- Decision date
- 30 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Apted
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr Mardner, Mr Peart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tracy Keown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 26 to 30 September 2022 before Employment Judge Apted, with Tribunal Member Mr Mardner and Tribunal Member Mr Peart, the judgment states that Tracy Keown’s claims for failure to make a reasonable adjustment under section 20 Equality Act 2010, discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010, a health and safety detriment under section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996, and unpaid holiday pay under regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998 were well founded and allowed.
The judgment also states that the claim for unlawful deduction of wages under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was refused. No separate reasons or itemised findings are set out in the extracted text, so the summary is limited to the outcomes recorded in the judgment.
By consent, the respondent, Dr Alma Sarajlic t/a Staines Road Surgery, was ordered to pay the claimant £45,000 by 28 December 2022. The judgment records that there was no order as to costs and that each party should bear its own costs of the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make a reasonable adjustment under section 20 Equality Act 2010. The judgment gives a global consent sum of £45,000 and does not apportion it between claims. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010. The judgment gives a global consent sum of £45,000 and does not apportion it between claims. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Other | Health and safety detriment under section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment gives a global consent sum of £45,000 and does not apportion it between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay under regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998. The judgment gives a global consent sum of £45,000 and does not apportion it between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment gives a global consent sum of £45,000 and does not apportion it between claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £45,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 13 Employment Rights 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.