Case 3303031/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303031/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Ms M Harris, Ms L Jaffe
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the complaint of direct disability discrimination, stating that it was not well-founded. The written judgment does not include reasons for that conclusion, because reasons were given orally and written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Following a concession by the respondent, the tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a basic award of GBP 5,382.84, and the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were stated not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the PDF text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that, following concession by the respondent, the complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds. The only stated award is a basic award of GBP 5,382.84. | Upheld | — | £5,383 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,383
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,383
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.