Case 3316480/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Ms A Rumble, Counsel For the v Ms L Stephenson, Solicitor — 2023

Case reference: 3316480/2021
Decision date: 23 February 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
Venue: Cambridge

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms A Rumble, Counsel For the

Respondent

Ms L Stephenson, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought disability discrimination and unfair dismissal complaints against Royal Mail Group Limited. The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination complaint because it had been withdrawn by the claimant. The written record does not set out any separate remedy for that complaint.

The unfair dismissal complaint succeeded under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s conduct before dismissal justified a 50% reduction in the basic award under section 122(2). It also reduced the compensatory award by 60% in total, reflecting both the chance that the claimant might still have been dismissed even if he had not been treated unfairly and the tribunal’s finding that the claimant’s actions contributed to his dismissal under section 123(6). The written record does not state the monetary amounts awarded.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The judgment says the disability discrimination complaint was dismissed on the grounds that it was withdrawn by the claimant.	Withdrawn	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal unfair contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It reduced the basic award by 50% under section 122(2) and reduced the compensatory award by 60% in total, including for contribution under section 123(6) and the chance the claimant might still have been dismissed.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.