Case 2500100/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Richardson v Mr Paul Watson — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500100/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Lynn
- Venue
- Newcastle
- Panel members
- Lynn Jackson, Derek Cattell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Richardson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Newcastle heard the case on 9-11 October and 14 November 2023 before Employment Judge Sweeney with lay members Lynn Jackson and Derek Cattell. Mr Richardson brought disability discrimination claims, unlawful deduction of wages claims, a breach of contract claim, an automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 99 ERA 1996, and a holiday pay claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent had not provided a written statement of particulars of employment.
On disability, the tribunal separated the case into two bases. It found that the claimant had not shown that anxiety and depression amounted to a long-term disability during the relevant period, so the direct discrimination claim failed; it also found in any event that the respondent had paid the claimant the contractually agreed salary on time. The gout-based reasonable adjustments claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that gout was a disability by the end of May 2022, but held that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know that the claimant was at a substantial disadvantage from the absence of a desk and chair, and it found the claimant could use a stool or work at the office desk.
The unlawful deduction and breach of contract claims were dismissed. The tribunal found the agreed pay was £20,000 a year at the start, later revised to £22,000 a year from July 2022, and not £21,000 or £12 an hour. It held that the bonus claim was out of time and not contractual, that the attachment of earnings deduction had statutory authority, and that the pension contribution complaint failed because the cessation notice only took effect later. The automatically unfair constructive dismissal claim failed because the claimant did not prove a repudiatory breach or any connection between the respondent's conduct and proposed paternity or shared parental leave.
The working time claim succeeded because the tribunal found one day's holiday remained untaken at termination and had not been paid. It awarded £84.62 under regulation 30 WTR 1998. Because the claimant also succeeded on that claim, the tribunal made the mandatory section 38 EA 2002 minimum award of £846.16 for the respondent's failure to provide written particulars of employment, giving a total award of £930.78.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claim. It found that the anxiety and depression case was not made out because the evidence did not show a long-term mental impairment during the relevant period, and in any event the respondent had paid the claimant the contractually agreed salary on time. The reasonable adjustments limb, based on gout and the absence of a desk and chair, was also dismissed because the tribunal found the respondent did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the claimant was at a substantial disadvantage. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction of wages claims. It found the initial pay agreement was £20,000 a year, later revised to £22,000 a year from July 2022, not £21,000 or £12 an hour as the claimant argued, so the salary was not underpaid. The bonus claim failed as out of time and because the tribunal found it was not contractual, and the deduction relating to the attachment of earnings order was held to have been made with statutory authority. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim in respect of pension contributions was dismissed. The tribunal found the NEST cessation correspondence came too late to affect the November 2022 pay run and that no pension was deducted in December 2022, so no breach was established. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatically unfair constructive dismissal claim under section 99 ERA 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant had not proved a repudiatory breach, did not show his wages were late or wrong, and did not establish any connection between the respondent's conduct and proposed paternity or shared parental leave. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £931
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 6 EqA 2010
- section 13 EqA 2010
- section 20-21 EqA 2010
- Shamoon comparator test
- Madarassy/Igen burden-shifting
- section 99 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 23 ERA 1996
- regulation 30 WTR 1998
- section 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.