Case 3311610/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mace, Claimant’s father For the v Mr Nadin, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311610/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Ms J Schiebler, Mr D Hart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mace, Claimant’s father For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cambridge, the tribunal chaired by Employment Judge Tynan with Ms J Schiebler and Mr D Hart recorded an oral judgment in writing. The claimant's complaint that she was victimised by the First Respondent on 9 June 2021 succeeded. The complaint arose when she was told that she would be invited to attend an investigation meeting about her actions in reading emails between the Second Respondent and Rhona Faulkner.
The Tribunal ordered the First Respondent to pay the claimant £1,250 as compensation for that victimisation complaint. The claimant's remaining complaints against the First and Second Respondents were found not well founded and dismissed. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The complaint succeeded in relation to the First Respondent telling the claimant on 9 June 2021 that she would be invited to attend an investigation meeting about her actions in reading emails between the Second Respondent and Rhona Faulkner. | Upheld | — | £1,250 |
| Other | The claimant's remaining complaints against the First and Second Respondents were found not well founded and dismissed; the written record does not specify each legal label. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,250
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,250
- 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.