Case 2405912/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bialick v NNE Law Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405912/2020
- Decision date
- 30 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
- Panel members
- Mr A Egerton, Mr P Stowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Bialick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Manchester by CVP before Employment Judge Leach, with Mr A Egerton and Mr P Stowe sitting as the lay members. It recorded that Mr P Bialick succeeded in his complaint of indirect discrimination on the protected characteristic of religion or belief under section 19 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
As remedy under section 124 Equality Act 2010, the respondent was ordered to pay £18,000 for injury to feelings, £5,404.32 for loss of earnings, and £3,075.54 interest, making £26,479.86 in total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of indirect discrimination on the protected characteristic of religion or belief under section 19 Equality Act 2010. The award was made under section 124 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Religion or belief | £26,480 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages complaint under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,480
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,404
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- section 124 Equality Act 2010
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
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.