Case 6001844/2024 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v - No Appearance — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001844/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cadney, sitting alone (no respondent appearance), found that the claimant - who suffered from depression and anxiety since the age of fifteen - was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material times. The Tribunal upheld her claim of discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010): the most natural inference from the facts was that the respondent decided not to provide the claimant with shifts after her three-week agreed absence (17-27 November 2023) and then dismissed her on 9 January 2024 because of that absence, which was something arising in consequence of disability. As the respondent had not entered a response or attended, no justification defence was established.
The claimant was awarded compensation totalling £26,059.05: loss of earnings £7,502.40, accrued holiday pay £806.51, injury to feelings £15,000 (lower end of the middle Vento bracket), interest on the injury-to-feelings award of £2,300 (8% per annum over 23 months), and interest on financial losses of £450.14. No ACAS uplift was awarded, the Judge finding the disciplinary/grievance process was not engaged by the discriminatory acts.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability (s.15 EqA 2010) — refusal to provide shifts and dismissal because of absence arising from disability. Comprises loss of earnings £7,502.40, holiday pay £806.51, injury to feelings £15,000, interest on injury to feelings £2,300, interest on financial losses £450.14. No ACAS uplift. Default judgment as respondent did not file a response or attend. | Upheld | Disability | £26,059 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,059
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,309
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(2) Equality Act 2010
- McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd
- Aderimi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- Igweike v TSB Bank Plc
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs
- Igen Ltd v Wong
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.