Case 3325479/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P. Bednarski v Adpol London Ltd and 2 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 3325479/2019
- Decision date
- 17 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr P. Bednarski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondents did not file responses and did not attend, so the tribunal entered judgment under rule 21. The Claimant had worked for the First Respondent as Branch Director from 2 May 2017 until 30 October 2019. He had a permanent disability affecting his mobility arising from childhood bone cancer, and after a foot injury at work on 10 July 2019 he became completely immobile and remained signed off sick until 5 January 2020.
The tribunal upheld disability discrimination against all three Respondents. It found that the Claimant was dismissed in consequence of disability-related absence from work, so the claim fell within s.15 Equality Act 2010. The Second and Third Respondents were the director and owner of the First Respondent business and were the individuals who dismissed him. The unfair dismissal claim was upheld against the First Respondent only, because it was the employer and dismissed the Claimant on 18 October 2019 without following any process.
On remedy, the tribunal found that if a fair procedure had been followed, with consultation and medical advice, the Claimant would still have been dismissed within four weeks of 18 October 2019 and would have received two weeks' notice. It awarded £1,055.10 for financial losses on the discrimination claim, including notice pay, and £12,500 for injury to feelings in the Vento middle band. It also awarded a £384 basic award for unfair dismissal and £527.55 for untaken holiday. No separate compensatory award was made for unfair dismissal because the financial losses overlapped with the discrimination award. The three Respondents were jointly and severally liable for £13,555.10, and the First Respondent was liable for a further £911.55.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found a s.15 Equality Act 2010 disability discrimination claim and held the three Respondents jointly and severally liable for £13,555.10 in total, comprising injury to feelings and financial losses. | Upheld | Disability | £13,555 |
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld against the First Respondent only. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £384 and made no separate compensatory award because the Claimant's financial losses overlapped with the disability discrimination compensation. | Upheld | — | £384 |
| Breach of contract | This was the notice pay claim. The tribunal said no separate award was made because notice pay had been included within the £1,055.10 financial-loss figure for the disability discrimination claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Payment in lieu of untaken annual leave on termination. Awarded against the First Respondent only. | Upheld | — | £528 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,467
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £384
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,055
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- Vento middle band
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.