Case 3302685/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person (assisted by her daughter) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302685/2022
- Decision date
- 12 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
- Venue
- Cambridge via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms S Godding, Mr D Sagar
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person (assisted by her daughter) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 22 and 23 February 2024 before Employment Judge Andrew Clarke KC and members Ms S Godding and Mr D Sagar, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for unlawful disability discrimination under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010. The judgment records no remedy for that claim because it failed.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to supply itemised pay statements in accordance with s.8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It recorded that compliant itemised pay statements were subsequently supplied, and for that reason the claimant was entitled to no further remedy on that issue.
Separately, the tribunal found that the respondent had deducted £96.35 from the claimant's wages in January 2022 contrary to Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £96.35 to the claimant. No other monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010 dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to supply itemised pay statements in accordance with s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996, but compliant statements were later supplied so no further remedy was awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction of £96.35 from wages in January 2022 and ordered repayment of that sum. | Upheld | — | £96 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £96
- 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.