Case 2415513/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M West v Funky Owl Pub (Holdings) Limited and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2415513/2018
- Decision date
- 9 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wardle
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs A Ramsden, Mr Makhaba
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs M West
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs M West was employed as a bar person at the Red House pub in Maghull from February 2018 until 10 June 2018, when the pub closed for refurbishment. It rejected the first respondent's case that the proceedings had been brought against the wrong entity, finding that the payslips and correspondence did not show that Funky Owl (RHM) Ltd was her employer. It also removed Mike Coupe as a party on its own initiative under section 109 of the Equality Act 2010.
On age discrimination, the tribunal accepted evidence that, during the refurbishment, a poster and online adverts sought staff aged 18 to 25 for the refurbished pub. It found that this showed an intention to exclude older workers and that Mrs West, who was 64 at the material time, was treated less favourably because of age. It also found that the 18 to 25 requirement was a provision, criterion or practice that placed older workers at a particular disadvantage, that it disadvantaged Mrs West, and that no justification was shown. Both direct and indirect age discrimination complaints were therefore well-founded.
On remedy for the discrimination findings, the tribunal awarded £800 for injury to feelings, shared between the successful age discrimination complaints. It also accepted the claimant's evidence on wages and holiday. It found that she had been underpaid for 38 hours, amounting to £297.54, and that she had also gone unpaid for five weeks after 10 June 2018, amounting to £1,197.20, because the respondent had no contractual right to withhold remuneration when no work was available.
The tribunal further found that Mrs West had taken no holiday during the employment and was entitled to 53 hours of accrued statutory leave, valued at £414.99. It upheld her complaint about the failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars and awarded two weeks' pay of £477.63. The total award was £3,187.36.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination. The tribunal found the claimant was treated less favourably because the respondent advertised for staff aged 18 to 25. Part of a shared £800 injury-to-feelings award for the successful age discrimination complaints. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Indirect age discrimination. The tribunal found the 18 to 25 age requirement was a provision, criterion or practice that disadvantaged older workers and the claimant, with no justification shown. Part of a shared £800 injury-to-feelings award for the successful age discrimination complaints. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Included £297.54 for 38 hours underpaid and £1,197.20 for five weeks with no pay during the refurbishment period. | Upheld | — | £1,495 |
| Working time regulations | Unpaid accrued statutory holiday pay for 53 hours at £7.83 per hour. | Upheld | — | £415 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal awarded two weeks' pay under the statutory uplift. | Upheld | — | £478 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,187
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,387
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 EqA 2010 direct discrimination
- s.19 EqA 2010 indirect discrimination
- s.136 EqA 2010 burden of proof
- s.109 EqA 2010 vicarious liability
- s.13 ERA 1996 unlawful deductions
- regs 13 and 13A WTR 1998
- s.1 ERA 1996 written particulars
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.