Case 2307708/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anthony Steward v Top Line Support Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2307708/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anthony Steward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 22 December 2023. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge proceeded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure to determine part of the claim. The tribunal found that Mr Anthony Steward was unfairly dismissed by Top Line Support Limited on 3 October 2023.
The tribunal also found that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant’s disability, contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. Both claims succeeded, but the judgment did not assess remedy at this stage. The tribunal stated that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled would be determined at a later Remedy Hearing, to be notified in due course.
The tribunal did not make a determination on the claims for notice pay, holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages because the claim form did not contain sufficient details. The judgment said those aspects could be considered at the same later hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent on 3 October 2023. Remedy was deferred to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments for the claimant’s disability, contrary to sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010. Remedy was deferred to a later Remedy Hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.