Case 2401545/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hammersley v Joseph Holt Limited HELD AT: Manchester (remotely by video) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401545/2024
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms B Robinson, Mr A Egerton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hammersley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting as a panel of Judge C Cowx with Ms B Robinson and Mr A Egerton, found that the claimant's claim of discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £1,015.95 as compensation for loss of earnings between 3 December 2023 and 16 January 2024, together with £6,500 in damages for injury to feelings. Interest was awarded on both components, in the sums of £82.41 on the loss of earnings award and £978.12 on the injury to feelings award.
The total sum ordered to be paid by the respondent to the claimant is £8,576.48. Written reasons were not provided as the judgment was given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was well founded and succeeded. Award covers loss of earnings (£1,015.95), injury to feelings (£6,500), and interest on both components (£82.41 + £978.12). | Upheld | Disability | £8,576 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,576
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,016
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
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.