Case 3220668/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Danny Gale v Sterling Extensive Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3220668/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sugarman Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Danny Gale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability hearing on 10 June 2022 before Employment Judge Sugarman, Mr Danny Gale succeeded in his complaint of disability harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. His complaint of direct disability discrimination under section 13 failed, and the victimisation complaint was recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal also upheld the unfair dismissal complaint under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The remedy section also included a separate award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment.
The respondent was ordered to pay £24,837.42 in total. That sum included £12,500 for injury to feelings, £1,650 interest on injury to feelings, £2,736.35 for loss of earnings during employment caused by unlawful harassment, £1,340.04 for past loss of earnings caused by the discriminatory dismissal, £326.11 interest on past financial losses, and a 10% uplift of £1,855 under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It also included £1,095.18 as the unfair dismissal basic award, £450 for loss of statutory rights, £1,460.24 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, and £1,424.50 for holiday pay. The judgment states that the recoupment provisions do not apply.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Complaint under section 26 Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The remedy section grouped the discrimination figures under a general 'Unlawful Discrimination' heading and did not separately apportion them between the successful harassment finding and the dismissed direct discrimination complaint. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states this complaint was 'dismissed upon withdrawal'. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim succeeded. The award included a basic award of £1,095.18 and £450 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £1,545 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday on termination succeeded under Regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,425 |
| Other | The tribunal made a £1,460.24 award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,460 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £24,837
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,095
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,076
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 26 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.