Case 2400599/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bailey First v Second Respondent: ARH UK Limited Mr I Coll — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400599/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Dr H Vahramian, Mr J Flynn
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bailey First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester, before Employment Judge Humble with Dr H Vahramian and Mr J Flynn, dismissed the protected disclosure detriment complaint. It also recorded that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal, and that the section 104 ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed for asserting a statutory right.
The complaint of sex discrimination succeeded against both respondents. The tribunal ordered the First and Second Respondents to pay the claimant £12,276 jointly and severally, made up of £9,900 for injury to feelings and £2,376 interest.
The First Respondent was found to have made unauthorised deductions from the claimant’s wages. It was ordered to pay £13,830 in total, comprising £6,100 for unpaid bonus in February, May and August 2020, £3,500 for unpaid wages in April, May and June 2020, and £4,230 of accrued holiday pay due on termination. The claim for failure to provide itemised payslips was not pursued and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the respondents subjected the claimant to a detriment on the ground that he made a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996; dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 104 ERA 1996; tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed for asserting a statutory right. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Complaint succeeded against both respondents. The award was joint and several and comprised £9,900 for injury to feelings and £2,376 interest. | Upheld | Sex | £12,276 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages. The award covered £6,100 unpaid bonus, £3,500 unpaid wages, and £4,230 accrued holiday pay due on termination. | Upheld | — | £13,830 |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised payslips was not pursued and was dismissed. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,106
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.