Case 3202987/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Khanom v Stirling Ackroyd Legal LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202987/2019
- Decision date
- 29 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Members
- Panel members
- Ms A Berry, Ms T A Jansen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Khanom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Khanom succeeded in her claims of direct age discrimination under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and harassment related to age under section 26. The judgment record provided states the successful claims and the remedy, but does not set out a fuller factual narrative or separate the compensation between the two claims.
The tribunal awarded £4,158.40 for financial losses covering 16 September 2019 to 24 February 2020. That sum included a 25% uplift because of the respondent's unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code. It also awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings, again including a 25% ACAS uplift.
Interest was agreed between the parties in the sum of £1,281.39. The total amount payable by Stirling Ackroyd Legal LLP was £15,439.79.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not apportion the remedy between the successful claims in the supplied text. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to age contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment does not apportion the remedy between the successful claims in the supplied text. | Upheld | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,440
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,158
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- ACAS Code uplift
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.