Case 2411199/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Turner v Paul Hartmann Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411199/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Murphy, Mr P Dobson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christopher Turner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningUnanimous judgment by Employment Judge McDonald with lay members Mr A Murphy and Mr P Dobson at Manchester. The tribunal accepted the claimant was a disabled person at all relevant times by reason of both autism spectrum disorder and cancer. The Equality Act 2010 complaints (harassment under s.26, unfavourable treatment because of something arising from disability under s.15, and victimisation under s.27) were not well-founded and were dismissed. The unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded, but the tribunal found a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within six weeks of the actual dismissal date. The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code, attracting a 25% uplift on the compensatory award under s.207A TULRCA 1992. However, the tribunal also found the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct and reduced both the basic award and the compensatory award by 100%. The respondent was therefore ordered to pay £0 by way of basic award and £0 by way of compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability under s.26 Equality Act 2010 not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal upheld but tribunal found 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within 6 weeks (Polkey). 25% ACAS uplift on compensatory award for respondent's failure to comply with the ACAS Code, but compensatory award reduced by 100% for blameworthy contributory conduct, and basic award reduced by 100% on the same basis. Net awards: basic award £0.00; compensatory award £0.00. PDF text was truncated; confidence reduced accordingly. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- section 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.