Claimant v MA and TC Trickett t/a Whittams
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of direct discrimination on the merits after a full hearing. Reasons were given orally but not provided in the written judgment.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint of harassment on the merits after a full hearing. Reasons were given orally but not provided in the written judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unauthorized deductions from wages in respect of arrears of pay failed on the merits after a full hearing.
The complaint seeking damages for breach of contract (notice pay) was dismissed because the claimant had been paid an amount by the respondent in respect of notice pay and the claimant did not advance a claim that any outstanding amounts remained due.
The complaint seeking a payment in respect of accrued but untaken holiday entitlement was dismissed because the claimant had been paid an amount by the respondent in respect of holiday and the claimant did not advance a claim that any outstanding amounts remained due.
Facts
The claimant brought claims of direct discrimination, harassment, unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract (notice pay), and unpaid holiday entitlement against a partnership trading as Whittams. The respondent had made payments to the claimant in respect of notice pay and holiday pay prior to the hearing. An employer's contract claim was also brought by the respondent but was withdrawn.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims. The discrimination and harassment claims failed on the merits, as did the wage deduction claim. The notice pay and holiday pay claims were dismissed because the respondent had already made payments and the claimant did not argue that any further amounts remained outstanding. The respondent's contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Practical note
A self-represented claimant faced a fully represented employer in a multi-day discrimination hearing and lost on all claims, highlighting the disadvantage of litigating in person against legally represented opposition.
Case details
- Case number
- 1801075/2024
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No