Case 6016557/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R O’Keeffe, counsel For the v Respondent — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016557/2024
- Decision date
- 27 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R O’Keeffe, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Moore, sitting alone at Norwich (CVP) following a hearing on 23-27 February 2026, determined the claims brought by Ms I Bendelow against Castle Trust Capital PLC. The Claimant was represented by Mr R O’Keeffe of counsel and the Respondent by Mr B Amunwa of counsel.
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal and awarded the Claimant £15,000 by way of total compensation. The claims of disability discrimination, brought pursuant to sections 15, 19, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, were dismissed.
Full reasons were given orally to the parties at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless a written request is received by the Tribunal within 14 days of the sending of the judgment. The judgment does not set out a breakdown of the compensation between basic and compensatory awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states the claim for unfair dismissal succeeds and the Claimant is awarded £15,000 by way of total compensation. | Upheld | — | £15,000 |
| Disability discrimination | Claims under ss. 15, 19, 20 & 21 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
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.