Case 3305633/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Johnson, Counsel For the v Mr S Hoyle, Consultant (Croner) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305633/2020
- Decision date
- 12 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Panel members
- Ms A Telfer, Mr N Boustred
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Johnson, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal had previously found that Mr Knight resigned on 19 May 2020 and that the resignation amounted to constructive unfair dismissal. In the remedy judgment it recorded that the dismissal was not itself a contravention of the Equality Act 2010, so no injury to feelings was awarded for the dismissal claim.
It also recorded that there were acts of harassment, and that the £12,000 injury to feelings award related to those incidents only. The tribunal found more than one incident, that the conduct continued after Mr Knight asked for it to stop, and that he felt humiliated and later received GP review, hospital treatment after taking an overdose of eight paracetamol tablets, counselling, CBT and medication. Applying the post-6 April 2020 Vento bands, it placed the case in the middle band, would otherwise have awarded around £11,000, and increased the figure to reflect £1,000 aggravated damages arising from the way the litigation was conducted. It also awarded £2,527.56 interest on the injury to feelings sum.
On the unfair dismissal compensation, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,228 and financial loss of £13,761.74. It accepted that the Claimant reasonably tried self-employed delivery work and short employee roles after leaving the Respondent, but found that by around mid-November 2020 it should have been apparent that the self-employed work would not sustain him and that he then unreasonably failed to seek enough full-time employment. It therefore limited loss to 39 weeks, made no Polkey reduction and no reduction for contributory fault, and applied the Recoupment Regulations, with a total monetary award of £31,517.30 and a prescribed element of £13,761.74.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The award for injury to feelings related to the harassment incidents only and included £1,000 aggravated damages. The tribunal found more than one incident, that they continued after the Claimant asked for them to stop, and that they caused humiliation and later treatment needs. | Upheld | Sexual orientation | £12,000 |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the Claimant's resignation amounted to constructive unfair dismissal, but it said the dismissal was not itself a contravention of the Equality Act 2010, so no injury to feelings flowed from the dismissal. The award comprised a basic award of £3,228 and financial loss of £13,761.74, with no Polkey reduction and no reduction for contributory fault. | Upheld | — | £16,990 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,517
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,228
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £13,762
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2)
- Da'Bell v NSPCC
- Simmons v Castle
- De Souza v Vinci Construction (UK) Ltd
- Alexander v Home Office
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Shaw
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Dunnachie v Kingston upon Hull
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
- duty to mitigate loss
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.