Case 3300461/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Taylor v Avery Healthcare Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300461/2024
- Decision date
- 14 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Partington LL
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- LL Thompson, S Bury
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously decided that the claims for unfair dismissal, direct age discrimination, harassment on the grounds of age, and harassment on the grounds of race were not well founded and were dismissed.
The tribunal found the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages to be well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant GBP 972, subject to any applicable deductions for tax and national insurance. The written record states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the direct age discrimination claim was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the short judgment record. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that harassment on the grounds of age was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the short judgment record. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that harassment on the grounds of race was not well founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the short judgment record. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as unauthorised deduction from wages and awards GBP 972, subject to applicable tax and national insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £972 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £972
- across all upheld claims
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.