Case 2411537/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Laura Halsall of Counsel For the v Mr James Barron - Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2411537/2019
- Decision date
- 7 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A G Barker, Ms B Hillon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Laura Halsall of Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Manchester before Employment Judge A M Buchanan with non-legal members Mr A G Barker and Ms B Hillon, unanimously held that the claimant's claim of discrimination arising from disability under sections 15 and 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded. It also unanimously held that the unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded. The written judgment records that the claimant was entitled to a remedy on each claim.
The judgment does not set out the oral reasons in the written record. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The only further material recorded is that terms of settlement on remedy had been agreed and noted on the tribunal file.
On remedy, the Tribunal adjourned the matter until 4:00pm on 3 October 2020 to allow those agreed settlement terms to be carried into effect. The judgment further records that if neither party applied to restore the matter for a remedy hearing by that date, the question of remedy arising from the judgment would stand dismissed without further order. No monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim advanced under sections 15 and 39(2) Equality Act 2010. The judgment records that it was well-founded and that the claimant was entitled to a remedy. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim advanced under sections 94/98 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that it was well-founded and that the claimant was entitled to a remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 15 and 39(2) Equality Act 2010
- sections 94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 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.