Case 6001373/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Fuller, husband v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001373/2023
- Decision date
- 12 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Mr W Roberts, Ms G Fleming
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Fuller, husband
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in Leeds on 25 to 28 February 2024 before Employment Judge JM Wade, with Mr W Roberts and Ms G Fleming sitting as lay members. The claimant, Mrs E Fuller, was represented by her husband, Mr Fuller, and the respondent was represented by Mr Downey, counsel.
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's Equality Act complaints and found that the unfair dismissal complaint was well founded. The written judgment records the formal decisions only and states that the reasons were given orally to the parties.
On remedy, the tribunal made a compensatory award of £5,906.29. It also recorded that the recoupment regulations do not apply to that award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment groups this with the claimant's Equality Act complaints and does not separately set out the individual allegations in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment groups this with the claimant's Equality Act complaints and does not separately set out the individual allegations in the extracted text. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded and made a compensatory award of £5,906.29. The judgment states that the recoupment regulations do not apply. | Upheld | — | £5,906 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,906
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,906
- 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.