Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.
Mr N Skinner v A1 Home Emergency 24/7 Ltd (England and Wales : Sex Discrimination)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff brought claims against Company A alleging direct sex discrimination and victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The claims were heard at Swansea Magistrates Court before Employment Judge Lloyd-Lawrie and two panel members. The Plaintiff represented himself, while Company A was represented by Attorney Henry. The Tribunal also considered allegations of unauthorised deductions from the Plaintiff’s pay.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Plaintiff’s claim of direct sex discrimination was established.
- Whether the Plaintiff’s claim of victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 was established.
- Whether Company A made unauthorised deductions from the Plaintiff’s pay and the extent of such deductions.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Tribunal found that the Plaintiff failed to establish claims of direct sex discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. However, the Tribunal identified that Company A had made unauthorised deductions from the Plaintiff’s pay in three specific amounts relating to salary, a pre-approved annual leave day, and statutory sick pay over a six-month period. The Tribunal quantified the total sum owed and ordered Company A to pay this amount to the Plaintiff.
Holding and Implications
The Tribunal’s final decision was as follows:
- The claims of direct sex discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.
- Company A was ordered to pay the Plaintiff £4,089.49 for unauthorised deductions from pay.
The decision directly resolves the financial dispute between the parties without establishing new legal precedent. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the specified sums, and the discrimination and victimisation claims do not succeed.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Comments