Case 2504149/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L George First Respondent Mr Mark Charnley Second v Jolly Sailors Inn Limited (dissolved) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2504149/2019
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Mr J Adams, Ms B Kirby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L George First Respondent Mr Mark Charnley Second
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Middlesbrough on 28 and 29 March 2022, before Employment Judge Aspden sitting with Mr J Adams and Ms B Kirby, the Tribunal unanimously found that the First Respondent harassed the claimant and discriminated against her by dismissing her, both in contravention of the Equality Act 2010. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The Tribunal ordered the First Respondent to pay the claimant £25,997.39. That sum was made up of £10,594.34 for financial loss, comprising £9,547.31 to date and £1,047.03 future loss, plus £12,000 for injury to feelings and £3,403.05 interest. The interest figure included £2,435.38 on the injury to feelings award from 16 September 2019 to 29 March 2022 at 8% per annum, and £967.67 on the financial loss figure from the midpoint between those dates to 29 March 2022 at 8% per annum.
The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed because the company had been dissolved.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,997
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £22,594
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.