Case 2417905/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Millin (counsel) For the v Ms H Gardener (solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2417905/2020
- Decision date
- 3 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Panel members
- Ms H D Price, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Millin (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe liability judgment dated 2 September 2022 found that Mr A K Pollard Wilson's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. The tribunal held that the dismissal resulted from procedural unfairness, but that the adoption of a fair procedure would have delayed a fair dismissal to a date no later than 14 September 2020. It dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination complaints under section 13, section 15, and sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010.
At the remedy hearing on 29 March 2023, the tribunal recorded that the parties had agreed the basic award at £10,846.15, loss of earnings from 15 August 2020 to 14 September 2020 at £1,926.21, and loss of statutory rights at £500.00. Those figures produced a total award of £13,272.36, which the tribunal ordered in full and final settlement of the successful unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also recorded a recoupment position under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996. It understood that the claimant had not received any material benefits at the relevant time and stated that the respondent would not be required to withhold a prescribed element pending confirmation from the DWP as to whether recoupment applied. The written record also included the standard interest notice, including the relevant decision day of 3 April 2023 and stipulated rate of 8% per annum, but no separate interest sum was set out in the award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal's liability judgment of 2 September 2022 found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded, and the remedy judgment of 29 March 2023 ordered £13,272.36 in full and final settlement of that successful complaint. The tribunal recorded that a fair procedure would have delayed a fair dismissal to no later than 14 September 2020. | Upheld | — | £13,272 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed in the liability judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from a disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed in the liability judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed in the liability judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,272
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £10,846
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,426
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20 & 21 Equality Act 2010
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.