Case 6000584/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Singletary v Fonthill Care (Harry Park) Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000584/2025
- Decision date
- 11 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Representation
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Singletary
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal upheld Mrs Singletary’s claim of direct disability discrimination by association in relation to her dismissal by Fonthill Care (Harry Park) Limited.
The Tribunal dismissed her claim of direct disability discrimination by association in relation to being escorted from the premises. The written judgment records that summary oral reasons were given on 11 June 2026 but does not set out further findings or reasoning.
The Respondent was ordered to pay Mrs Singletary £37,019.40, comprising a compensatory award of £20,000, £14,000 for injury to feelings, and £3,019.40 in interest.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination by association in relation to the Claimant's dismissal. | Upheld | Disability | £37,019 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination by association in relation to the Claimant being escorted from the premises. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £37,019
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £20,000
- 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.