Case 3307692/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Constantine v Blackwater Valley Veterinary Centres Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3307692/2023
- Decision date
- 4 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Constantine
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages, constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination (chronic fatigue) against Blackwater Valley Veterinary Centres Limited. The case was heard at Reading on 3 and 4 July 2025 before Employment Judge George sitting alone, with reserved judgment.
The Tribunal found a series of unauthorised deductions from wages between May 2021 and 31 July 2023 well-founded; the precise sum is to be calculated following further submissions, with no jurisdiction over deductions on or before 3 July 2021. On disability discrimination, the direct discrimination complaint was dismissed, but the s.15 complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability — proposing a new part-time contract in August 2022 at a disproportionately low salary — was well-founded; time was extended on a just-and-equitable basis. The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal succeeded.
For the unfair dismissal and discrimination complaints the Tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,858.00, a compensatory award of £8,925.81 (14 weeks' net loss after mitigation plus pension loss), £5,000 injury to feelings and £1,233.33 interest — a total of £19,017.14. The wages claim quantum is reserved.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Series of unauthorised deductions from wages between May 2021 and 31 July 2023 found well-founded; quantum to be calculated following further submissions. Tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of deductions paid on or before 3 July 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination complaint not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010): proposing a new part-time contract in August 2022 at a disproportionately low salary. Time extended on just-and-equitable basis. Injury to feelings £5,000 plus interest of £1,233.33 (37 months at 8%). Disability is chronic fatigue. | Upheld | Disability | £6,233 |
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal upheld. Basic award of 6 x £643.00 = £3,858.00; compensatory award of £8,925.81 (14 weeks net of tax/NI after credit for mitigation £8,594.52, plus pension loss of £331.29). | Upheld | — | £12,784 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,017
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,858
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,926
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 123 Equality Act 2010 (just and equitable extension of time)
- Apportionment Act 1870
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
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.