Case 2409413/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Jones v Kate Hetherington T/A SP Catering and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409413/2022
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms D Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not present a response and did not attend, so the case was determined under Rule 21 on the information before Employment Judge Ainscough. The tribunal accepted that Ms Jones was paid £10 per hour, worked 16 hours per week before the relevant transfer, and had 3 complete years' service from 1 May 2019 to 27 October 2022.
It found that her hours were reduced in August 2022 by 3 hours per week for 4 weeks, in September 2022 by 3 hours per week for 4 weeks, and in October 2022 by 9 hours per week for 4 weeks, and that this was less favourable treatment because of age. The claims for direct age discrimination, harassment related to age, and harassment related to sex succeeded. The tribunal awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings within the Vento middle band, £600 for the financial loss caused by the reduced hours, and £2,116.01 interest at 8%.
The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal calculated a £720 basic award and a pre-cap compensatory figure of £10,352.52 after including actual and future loss of earnings, loss of statutory rights, failure to provide written particulars of employment, and a 25% uplift for the respondents' complete failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice; it then applied the s.124 ERA 1996 cap and awarded a compensatory award of £8,320. The tribunal also found the claimant entitled to £480 notice pay under s.86 ERA 1996, and to holiday pay for accrued but untaken leave. The operative order states £734.40 for holiday pay, although paragraph 38 of the reasons states £734.72. The unlawful deduction from wages claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the respondents reduced Ms Jones's hours in August, September and October 2022 because of age. The £600 award was for the financial loss caused by the reduced hours; injury to feelings and interest were awarded separately across the discrimination findings. | Upheld | Age | £600 |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age succeeded. No separate monetary figure was stated for this head; it formed part of the discrimination award for injury to feelings and interest. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to sex succeeded. No separate monetary figure was stated for this head; it formed part of the discrimination award for injury to feelings and interest. | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Other | The claim for loss of statutory rights succeeded. The tribunal assessed this at £250 and included it in the pre-cap compensatory calculation. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Other | The claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment succeeded. The tribunal assessed this at £640 and included it in the pre-cap compensatory calculation. | Upheld | — | £640 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a £720 basic award and a compensatory award capped at £8,320 under s.124 ERA 1996. The reasons record a pre-cap compensatory figure of £10,352.52, including actual and future loss, loss of statutory rights, failure to provide written particulars of employment, and a 25% uplift for complete failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,970
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £720
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,320
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2002) EWCA Civ 1871
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.124 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
- ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures
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.