Case 3300379/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Richardson v SIG Trading Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300379/2021
- Decision date
- 30 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mrs A Brown, Mrs F Betts
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Richardson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford by CVP video link on 11, 12 and 13 July 2022 before Employment Judge Skehan, Mrs A Brown and Mrs F Betts. Mr K Richardson represented himself and SIG Trading Limited was represented by counsel. The tribunal found that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and successful.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's disability discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 as not well-founded. It also dismissed the breach of contract claim. The written record does not identify separate factual findings for the discrimination or contract claims beyond the stated outcomes.
In the unfair dismissal section, the tribunal referred to adjustments reflecting the possibility that the claimant would have been dismissed in time anyway and to reductions of the basic and compensatory awards under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record supplied here does not set out any monetary award or final remedy figure.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was successful, but it does not record any monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claims as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was unsuccessful and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 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.