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 namedChristopher Turner
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 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £0 |
Legal tests applied
9 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- Basic award
- £0
- Compensatory award
- £0
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.