Case 8000005/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Lynn Taylor v Hoddom Castle Coach House Limited (in Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000005/2022
- Decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Lynn Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Lynn Taylor brought disability discrimination complaints against Hoddom Castle Coach House Limited (in Liquidation). The tribunal found that she had osteoarthritis affecting her right arm and spine, that the condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her day-to-day activities, and that she was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged discrimination.
On the section 15 complaint, the tribunal accepted that Mrs Taylor was treated unfavourably when, after asking for 20 to 25 hours per week, she was given only 5 hours per week after her first week. It found that the treatment arose in consequence of disability because the claimant could not carry trays of glasses and plates or hoover, and those limitations explained the way her work was arranged. The tribunal also found that the reference to her "limitations" was unfavourable treatment arising from her need to work short shifts, which itself was a consequence of her disability.
The reasonable adjustments complaint failed. Mrs Taylor did not identify a provision, criterion or practice, and the tribunal said it was not for it to formulate one for her. It added that even if the relevant practice were asking bar staff to clear glasses and plates, it did not regard that as placing her at a substantial disadvantage because she said she could do the task if she did not have to carry a tray. The separate complaint about the dishwasher was also dismissed because no PCP was identified.
For remedy, the tribunal found that Mrs Taylor was out of work for three weeks before obtaining alternative employment. It calculated past loss of wages at £240, using an average of 8 hours per week at £10 per hour, and awarded £900 for injury to feelings. The total award ordered against the respondent was £1,140.
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 | Section 15 claim: the tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of osteoarthritis and held that being given only 5 hours per week after initially working 25 hours, and the use of the word "limitations", were unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability. The compensation was recorded in aggregate rather than apportioned between the disability complaints. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 20 reasonable adjustments claim dismissed because the claimant did not identify a provision, criterion or practice. The tribunal said it was not for it to articulate the PCP; even if the practice of asking bar staff to clear glasses and plates was treated as the PCP, it did not consider that this placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage. The dishwasher complaint was also dismissed for lack of an identified PCP. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,140
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £240
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 20 Equality Act 2010
- substantial adverse effect on normal day to day activities
- proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
- provision, criterion or practice (PCP)
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.