Case 3305386/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. O. Adedo v Livability Brookside House — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305386/2022
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr.
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. O. Adedo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bury St Edmunds before Employment Judge Mr A Spencer (sitting alone), found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant and ordered compensation of £3,467.76, comprising a basic award of £1,948.50 and a compensatory award of £1,519.26. The tribunal also declared that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the claimant because of her sex.
For the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal awarded £14,437.30, made up of £10,000 for injury to feelings with interest of £2,638.90, and financial losses of £1,588.77 with interest of £209.63. The respondent was further ordered to pay £1,306.88 gross for accrued holiday pay and £90 gross for unlawful deduction from wages, both subject to tax and national insurance deductions.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will only be provided on request within 14 days. The written record does not set out detailed factual findings or legal reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £3,468 |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | Sex | £14,437 |
| Holiday pay | Gross sum, subject to tax and NI deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,307 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum, subject to tax and NI deductions. | Upheld | — | £90 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,302
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,949
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,519
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.