Case 3309088/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Poster For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309088/2022
- Decision date
- 6 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood
- Panel members
- Mr F Wright, Mrs D Clarke
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Poster For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant, Miss Paige Rose, had been constructively unfairly dismissed by Staton’s Estate Agents LLP. It also upheld two disability discrimination claims: discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, and direct discrimination on the grounds of disability under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010.
The sex discrimination claim did not proceed to a merits determination because it was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The unlawful deductions from wages claim was dismissed on terms agreed between the parties. The judgment records a damages payment of £46,652.74, but it does not break that figure down between the successful claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld the claim under section 15 Equality Act 2010, describing it as discrimination arising from disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld the direct disability discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The sex discrimination claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deductions from wages claim was dismissed on terms agreed between the parties. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £46,653
- 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.