Case 2401731/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v G and H — 2023
- Case reference
- 2401731/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response having been presented, the tribunal issued judgment under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. Judgment was entered for the claimant on unfair dismissal under s95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 and on sexual harassment/assault under s26 Equality Act 2010.
The award was made up of a basic award of £1,575.00 for unfair dismissal, a compensatory award of £1,516.66 for loss of earnings, and £5,000.00 for injury to feelings on the harassment claim. The total ordered to be paid was £8,091.66.
The judgment gives no further narrative findings beyond the Rule 21 default position and the fact of the two upheld claims. The separate interest notice states that interest would only become payable if the sum remained unpaid after the relevant decision day, but no separate interest amount was assessed in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment entered under s95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996; award comprised a basic award and compensatory award for loss of earnings. | Upheld | — | £3,092 |
| Harassment | The judgment described this as sexual harassment/assault under s26 Equality Act 2010 and awarded injury to feelings. | Upheld | Sex | £5,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,092
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,575
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,517
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- s95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s26 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.