Case 4102808/2016 · Employment Tribunal
J Hendry Members: Mr IC MacFarlane Mr CR Neill Mr A v Z Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4102808/2016
- Decision date
- 4 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Dundee
- Panel members
- Mr IC MacFarlane, Mr CR Neill, Mr A
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Hendry Members: Mr IC MacFarlane Mr CR Neill Mr A
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was a worker, that he was disabled by ADHD, and that a dispute arose in February and March 2016 after Mr X announced changes to the estate agency terms, including a move away from free listings and the introduction of a monthly fee. The claimant reacted strongly to the proposed changes, his access and Top Agent points were removed after Mr X treated his calls and messages as a material breach, and his position was then reopened only partially after Ms B told Mr Y that he had ADHD.
The claim for unpaid commissions and other sums under s.18 ERA 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal accepted Mr X's evidence that commissions were paid when sales settled, found that the claimant had not proved further sums were due, and rejected the wider invoice claim because it included items not recoverable under the contract. The tribunal also noted that no separate breach of contract damages claim had been properly pled by the claimant, and that the respondents' counterclaim had no legal basis before the tribunal.
On discrimination, the tribunal held that the respondents were on notice of the claimant's disability and that his conduct in early March 2016 was strongly influenced by ADHD. It upheld victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010 because the failure to restore, or fully restore, his points and to reassure him after his 4 March email amounted to a detriment following a protected act. It also upheld the disability discrimination claim in respect of the termination of the contract, finding that the disability-related behaviour was the principal factor and that there was no objective justification.
The tribunal placed the victimisation award in the lower Vento band and awarded £1,500 for injury to feelings, with interest at 8% per annum from 4 March 2016. For the disability discrimination finding, it awarded £6,000 for injury to feelings, describing this as within the lower band but toward the higher end, with interest at 8% per annum from 8 March 2016.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal rejected the claim for unpaid commissions and other sums under s.18 ERA 1996. It found that commissions due on sales that had settled were paid, and that the broader invoice claim included items not recoverable under the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found victimisation under s.27 Equality Act 2010. The protected act was the claimant's 4 March 2016 email headed 'Disability Discrimination in the Workplace'; the award was £1,500 for injury to feelings with interest at 8% per annum from 4 March 2016. | Upheld | Disability | £1,500 |
| Disability discrimination | The order states a breach of s.20 Equality Act 2010, but the reasons analyse the termination as disability-related treatment arising from the claimant's ADHD and the tribunal awarded £6,000 for injury to feelings with interest at 8% per annum from 8 March 2016. | Upheld | Disability | £6,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,500
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.18 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Vento bands
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.