Case 2405069/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Taylor v Integrate (Preston and Chorley) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405069/2022
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms AA Roscoe, Dr H Vahramian
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and that Mr D Taylor was unfairly dismissed. The written record does not set out the full oral reasons, but it records the tribunal's conclusion on liability and the remedy that followed. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was not a disabled person in February 2022 by reason of anxiety and depression.
The claimant's discrimination arising from disability complaint in relation to the dismissal therefore failed and was dismissed. The only monetary remedy recorded was a basic award for unfair dismissal in the sum of £2,716.25. No compensatory award was made, and the recoupment regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well founded and awarded a basic award only. | Upheld | — | £2,716 |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person in February 2022 by reason of anxiety and depression, and the discrimination arising from disability complaint failed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,716
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,716
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.