Case 2500229/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Charville v Gin and Scone Limited HELD AT: Middlesbrough — 2026
- Case reference
- 2500229/2025
- Decision date
- 5 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedA Charville
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Gin and Scone Limited discriminated against the claimant by dismissing her, in a complaint that was well-founded on disability discrimination grounds. Discrimination compensation of £19,045.65 (inclusive of interest) was ordered, comprising £3,065.50 for past financial losses, £141.37 interest on those losses, £14,500 for injury to feelings (including £6,500 of aggravated damages), and £1,338.78 of interest on the injury-to-feelings award, calculated under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996.
The Tribunal also upheld the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages, finding that the respondent had failed to pay statutory sick pay due in January 2025 (£116.75 gross), and the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay (£183.04 damages). By consent the respondent was ordered to pay £1,232 in respect of the claimant's preparation time. Reasons were given orally and written reasons were not provided in the published document.
Claims and outcomes
3 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Upheld | Disability | £19,046 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £117 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £183 |
Legal tests applied
2 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,578
- Compensatory award
- £3,066
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.