Case 2401450/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lawton v Crystal Ball Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401450/2020
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Members
- Panel members
- Mr J King, Ms S Moores-Gould
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lawton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal's unanimous judgment recorded that Mr Lawton was dismissed and that his claim of constructive unfair dismissal succeeded. The hearing took place at Liverpool by CVP before Employment Judge Benson, with lay members Mr J King and Ms S Moores-Gould.
The Tribunal also held that Mr Lawton's claim of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part, and that his claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part.
It further found that the claims of harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010 and victimisation because of disability under section 27 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. The judgment directed that the matter be listed for a one-day remedy hearing, and no monetary award is recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under section 26 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation because of disability under section 27 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. | 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
- Open official judgment 4 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.