Case 2502165/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Sofi Lorimor v Smart Tan UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502165/2020
- Decision date
- 4 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Sofi Lorimor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Sofi Lorimor, was employed by Smart Tan UK Ltd from 9 March 2020 to 28 July 2020. She presented her claim on 20 November 2020. The respondent did not file a response by the due date of 31 December 2020, so the tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the material available.
Employment Judge Sweeney was satisfied that there was sufficient information in the claim form to enter judgment on liability only. The tribunal held that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was well-founded and succeeded, and that the complaint for accrued but untaken holiday pay under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations was also well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal did not deal with remedy at that stage and listed a preliminary hearing for 1 February 2021 to consider issues and directions relating to remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was found well-founded on a Rule 21 liability judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim was for accrued but untaken holiday pay under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.