Case 2402588/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Hall v Lotus Care (Cressingham Court) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402588/2019
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Mr M Gelling, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Horne and lay members Mr M Gelling and Mr J Murdie, gave a unanimous judgment in Mrs L Hall's claims against Lotus Care (Cressingham Court) Ltd. It rejected both disability discrimination complaints, finding that the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant because of disability and did not discriminate against her arising from disability.
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. For compensation, it recorded that had the respondent acted fairly, the claimant would have remained employed for a further two weeks beyond the actual dismissal date. It also found there was a two-thirds chance she would then have remained employed indefinitely, and a corresponding one-third chance that she would have been fairly dismissed two weeks after the actual dismissal date.
On remedy, the tribunal held it was just and equitable to reduce the basic award by 75% because of the claimant's contributory conduct, and to reduce the compensatory award by a further 35% on the same ground. The extracted judgment does not record a final monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim that the respondent discriminated against the claimant because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim that the respondent discriminated against the claimant arising from her disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed; the judgment records remedy assumptions and reductions but no final monetary figure. | Upheld | — | — |
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.