Case 2408110/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Daws v WSBL Limited HELD AT: Manchester (In Person) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408110/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Lay
- Panel members
- Mr Frame, Ms Whistler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Daws
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn Mr J Daws v WSBL Limited, the tribunal unanimously dismissed the Equality Act 2010 claims of disability-related discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability-related harassment as not well founded. The written record records those claims only by outcome and does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons in detail.
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £2,208.00, and no compensatory award was payable. The judgment also includes the standard Employment Tribunals interest notice, but it does not quantify any separate interest sum.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Disability-related discrimination claim dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment claim dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim succeeded; by consent the respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £2,208.00 and no compensatory award was payable. | Upheld | — | £2,208 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,208
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,208
- 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.