Case 2500551/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Arts Culture and Heritage Adventures CIC (T/a Unforgettable Experiences) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500551/2023
- Decision date
- 23 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Mrs S Don, Mr G Gallagher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the respondent discriminated against Mrs Hall under the Equality Act 2010 by suspending her in July 2022 and dismissing her in October 2022. It awarded £12,818.44 in compensation, made up of £5,972.41 for financial loss, £6,000 for injury to feelings, and £846.03 interest under regulation 2 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards etc) Regulations 1996. The interest figure included £604.93 on the injury to feelings award and £241.10 on the past financial loss element.
The tribunal also found that the respondent made unlawful deductions from wages by failing to pay Statutory Maternity Pay when it fell due. The claimant's claim for financial loss said to flow from that deduction was not made out, so no further award was made on that head in the extracted decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the claimant under the Equality Act 2010 by suspending her in July 2022 and dismissing her in October 2022. The extracted text does not specify the protected characteristic. | Upheld | — | £12,818 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was found to have made unlawful deductions from wages by failing to pay Statutory Maternity Pay on the dates it fell due. The claimant's claim for financial loss said to result from that deduction was not made out. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,818
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,972
- 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.