Case 2500162/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Singh v Manhattan Partners Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500162/2022
- Decision date
- 3 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Members
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr A Murphy, Mr P Dobson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss P Singh's claims of disability discrimination under sections 20, 21 and 26 Equality Act 2010, and automatically unfair constructive dismissal by reason of making a public interest disclosure under Part IVA and section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, were well founded. The respondent, Manhattan Partners Limited, did not attend the hearing at Manchester on 27 March 2023.
The tribunal ordered Manhattan Partners Limited to pay £22,700.29. That sum was made up of net financial loss of £13,951.49, injury to feelings of £8,000, and interest of £748.80 on the injury to feelings award for the period 24 January 2022 to 27 March 2023 at 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claims of disability discrimination pursuant to sections 20, 21 and 26 Equality Act 2010 were well founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of automatically unfair constructive dismissal by reason of making a public interest disclosure under Part IVA and section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,700
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £13,951
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.