Case 2307403/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robin White v Essex Utilities Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2307403/2020
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Krepski Tribunal
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Styles, Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robin White
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the response because it had not been actively pursued. It then recorded that Mr Robin White's unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that Essex Utilities Limited was in breach of contract when it dismissed Mr White without notice, and awarded him £3,156 in damages for that claim.
Mr White's disability discrimination claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded £27,352 for loss of earnings, £2,748.69 interest on that loss, £5,000 for injury to feelings, and £1,004.93 interest on injury to feelings, making a subtotal of £36,105.62 on the discrimination claim and a total award of £39,261.62 overall.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint not well-founded. The response was also struck out as not actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant without notice and awarded damages of £3,156. | Upheld | — | £3,156 |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld the disability discrimination claim and awarded £27,352 for loss of earnings, £2,748.69 interest on loss of earnings, £5,000 for injury to feelings, and £1,004.93 interest on injury to feelings, giving a subtotal of £36,105.62. | Upheld | Disability | £36,106 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £39,262
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £27,352
- 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.