Case 4103571/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lindsay v - Solicitor CITB — 2020
- Case reference
- 4103571/2020
- Decision date
- 6 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lindsay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a response and did not attend the hearing. Before the remedy hearing, the tribunal had issued a rule 21 judgment finding that the claimant succeeded in his claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The hearing on 19 October 2020 was therefore limited to remedy.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for 22 years and was 67 when dismissed on 19 February 2020. His weekly wage at that date was £560 net and £743 gross, with employer pension contributions at 9%. He had been absent from work from 8 May 2018 until termination and had received four months on full pay and six months on half pay, leaving him £36,405 worse off than if he had remained on full pay throughout. The tribunal accepted that, had he not been dismissed, he intended to work until age 70, and that he had tried to find alternative work without success.
For unfair dismissal, the tribunal calculated the basic award by reference to 20 weeks, a multiplier of 1.5 for age over 41, and the statutory cap of £525 per week, producing £15,750.25. It accepted the claimant had mitigated his loss and that, given his age and the economic climate, it would be difficult for him to obtain other work. It therefore accepted the claimant's claimed two years' loss of earnings of £58,248 and added £6,957 for pension loss and £350 for loss of statutory rights, but the compensatory award was capped at £42,113 because the statutory maximum for unfair dismissal compensation is 52 weeks' pay inclusive of pension contributions. The tribunal rejected any deduction for the state pension because it would have been payable regardless of employment.
For disability discrimination, the tribunal awarded the uncapped balance of £23,442 for loss of earnings, plus £36,405 for the shortfall in wages while the claimant remained employed, on the basis that the failure to redeploy him was an act of discrimination. It also awarded £7,500 for injury to feelings, described as close to the top of the lowest Vento band. The total award for disability discrimination was £67,347, and the overall total across both claims was £125,210.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability was determined by rule 21 before the remedy hearing. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £15,750.25 and a capped compensatory award of £42,113, making £57,863 in total for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £57,863 |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal awarded £23,442 for loss of earnings beyond the unfair dismissal cap, £36,405 for shortfall in wages while the claimant remained employed, and £7,500 for injury to feelings, totalling £67,347. | Upheld | Disability | £67,347 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £125,210
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £15,750
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £42,113
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.118 ERA 1996
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.126 ERA 1996
- reasonable steps to mitigate loss
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Vento (No 2) [2003] IRLR 102, CA
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.