Case 2503262/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr William Lane - Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 2503262/2018
- Decision date
- 14 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- North Shields
- Panel members
- Ms E Menton, Mr E A Euers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt North Shields on 29-31 May 2019, a tribunal chaired by Employment Judge A M Buchanan with lay members Ms E Menton and Mr E A Euers heard Ms Avril Iles's claims against Laura Ashley Limited. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so the published text states the outcomes and awards rather than a detailed written analysis.
The tribunal found that the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20/21 and schedule 8 of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded, that the disability-related harassment claim under sections 26 and 40 of the Equality Act 2010 was well-founded in part, and that the claim of discrimination arising from disability under sections 15 and 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded and was dismissed.
It also upheld the unfair constructive dismissal claim under sections 94/98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The respondent was ordered to pay £8,631.23 compensation for unlawful discrimination and £10,359.58 for unfair dismissal, comprising a basic award of £1,274.72 and a compensatory award of £9,084.86. The total sum due was £18,990.81 and the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20/21 and schedule 8, and section 39(5), of the Equality Act 2010 was found well-founded. The published judgment does not apportion the discrimination compensation between the discrimination claims. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of disability-related harassment under sections 26 and 40 of the Equality Act 2010 was found well-founded in part. The published judgment does not apportion the discrimination compensation between the discrimination claims. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim of discrimination arising from disability under sections 15 and 39(2)(d) of the Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was pleaded as unfair constructive dismissal under sections 94/98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and succeeded. The award comprised a basic award of £1,274.72 and a compensatory award of £9,084.86. | Upheld | — | £10,360 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,991
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,275
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,085
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- sections 20/21 and schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- section 39(5) Equality Act 2010
- sections 26 and 40 Equality Act 2010
- sections 15 and 39(2)(d) Equality Act 2010
- sections 94/98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 118-126 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.