Miss T Oloyede v London Borough of Croydon: 2300413/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2300413/2023
Between
Miss T OloyedeClaimantLondon Borough of CroydonRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Tueje
Members
Mr K MurphyMs E WhitlamMr Sheppard (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 12 August 2024
JUDGMENT
The following is the unanimous judgment of the Tribunal.[1]The following complaints under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, are well-founded and succeed:1.1 The decision made on 20th July 2022 to permanently withdraw the claimant from the apprenticeship; and1.2 The e-mail sent to the claimant by the Head of Service on 27th September 2022.[2]The remaining complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability are not well-founded and are dismissed.[3]The complaints under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability are not well-founded and are dismissed. CASE NUMBER 2300413/2023[4]The following complaint of harassment related to disability under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 is well-founded and succeeds: 4.1 The e-mail sent to the claimant on 27th September 2022 by the Head of Service.[5]The remaining complaints of harassment related to disability are not wellfounded and are dismissed.[6]The respondent shall pay the claimant an amount to be determined at the remedy hearing, to be held on a date to be notified to the parties in due course.
REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked for the reasons set out below.[1]The request for a review is contained in an e-mail. The paragraphs are not numbered.
Background
[2]The claimant was employed by the respondent as a newly qualified social worker from 7th July 2014 to September 2016. She returned as an agency worker in June 2017. And from 3rd April 2018, was employed by the respondent as a social worker in its Transitions Team, until she resigned on 5th April 2023. She presented her claim form and the accompanying 7-page grounds of claim to the Tribunal on 25th January 2023, while still employed by the respondent.[3]The claim as set out in the claim form and grounds of claim comprised the following complaints:3.1 Discrimination arising from disability;3.2 Failure to make a reasonable adjustment;3.3 Disability-related harassment; and3.4 Personal injury.[4]At the time her claim was presented, and at the date of the case management hearing on 4th October 2024, the claimant was legally represented. By the latter date, the claimant had resigned, but did not and has never applied for permission to amend the claim to bring any complaints regarding the termination of her employment. The claimant has also not sought to amend her claim to include a complaint that the respondent failed to deal with a grievance, which was not pleaded in the claim form or grounds of claim.[5]At the above-mentioned case management hearing, the Tribunal recorded the list of issues to be determined at the final hearing, which related to the complaints at paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 above. At paragraph 18 of the case management order, the Tribunal also directed that if the claimant wishes to rely on expert medical in support of her claim for damages for personal injury, she must send an application to the Tribunal and the respondent by 20th November 2023. No such application was made.[6]The final hearing took place on 5th to 9th August 2024, and the written judgment is dated 12th August 2024, which included the following decisions:6.1 The Tribunal found the respondent’s decision to withdraw the claimant from the apprenticeship cause was discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (see paragraph1.1 of the judgment)6.2 An e-mail sent to the claimant on 27th September 2022 by the respondent’s head of service was discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the 2010 Act (see paragraph1.2 of the judgment); and6.3 An e-mail sent to the claimant on 27th September 2022 by the respondent’s head of service was harassment contrary to section 26 of the Act (see paragraph 4.1 of the judgment);[7]The claim has been listed for a remedy hearing on 12th and 13th December 2024. Applications for Reconsideration[8]By rules 70 and 71 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 a Tribunal may reconsider any judgment on the application of a party, where it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. Under rule 72(1), an Employment Judge shall consider any such request, and: “… If the judge considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application shall be refused and the tribunal shall inform the parties of the refusal.”[9]The request for reconsideration is brought on 4 grounds, namely that the Tribunal should reconsider the following issues:9.1 The Failure to Address Grievance Procedures and Response to Harassment Complaints9.2 Legal Obligations to Investigate Grievances Thoroughly9.3 Failure to Consider the Removal from the Apprenticeship Course9.4 Impact on Health and Career Progression[10]Each ground is addressed in turn below. The Failure to Address Grievance Procedures and Response to Harassment Complaints[11]This matter was not included in the list of issues as a matter for the Tribunal to determine. The list of issues was dealt with by the Tribunal at the case management hearing on 4th October 2023 when the claimant was legally represented. There has been no application or request to amend the list of issues. The Tribunal sought clarification from the claimant at the final hearing as to whether the list of issues accurately affected her complaints, and she confirmed through Mr Emmanuel that it did.[12]In the Tribunal’s judgment, it is not appropriate that a request for a reconsideration deals with matters that could have, but were not, included in the list of issues. We acknowledge that the list of issues are not pleadings, but they inform the way the parties prepare and present their cases, and the substantive decisions the Tribunal makes. Including this matter in the list of issues would have provided the respondent with an opportunity to deal with it in its written and oral evidence, and would have alerted the Tribunal that the issue required determination. Legal Obligations to Investigate Grievances Thoroughly[13]This matter is similar to the first ground, and for the reasons stated at paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the Tribunal considers it is not appropriate to deal with this on a request for reconsideration. Failure to Consider the Removal from the Apprenticeship Course[14]This matter has already been dealt with, and the Tribunal found that removing the claimant from the apprenticeship course was contrary to section 15 of the 2010 Act (see paragraph 6.1 above). Impact on Health and Career Progression[15]This ground reads: The mishandling of the grievance, particularly in relation to her exclusion from the apprenticeship course and continued forced interactions with Mr Howell, had a significant negative impact on Ms. Oloyede’s health and career. … The Tribunal's ruling did not assess the full extent of this impact on her health and career, nor did it evaluate how the mishandling of the grievance contributed to her decision to resign.[16]In the list of issues the claimant contends that some alleged acts of discrimination and harassment have exacerbated her symptoms, but it does not raise personal injury as a separate complaint. The claimant has not adduced expert medical evidence to support her claim.[17]As to the points made regarding the Tribunal not dealing with the claimant’s grievance, that is dealt with at paragraphs 11 and 12 above.[18]As to the Tribunal allegedly not dealing with the claimant being removed from the apprenticeship course, that is dealt with at paragraph 14 above.[19]As to the impact, or loss, that the claimant states arises from the respondent’s treatment, to the extent she has succeed in certain aspects of her claim, those losses will be dealt with at the upcoming remedy hearing.[20]The Tribunal did not deal with the claimant’s decision to resign because that was not part of the claim nor the list of issues. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers it is inappropriate to deal with this on a request for reconsideration.
Conclusion
[21]As the matters raised in the request for reconsideration where either not identified in the list of issues as issues requiring a substantive determination, or relate to issues that have already been determined, the claimant’s reasons for requesting a reconsideration do not disclose any arguments that have a reasonable prospect of successfully establishing that it is necessary and in the interests of justice to reconsider the decision.[22]Accordingly, these points fail to pass the sift stage at rule 72(1).
Introduction
[1]The background to this matter is that the claimant was employed by the respondent as a social worker from 3rd April 2018 to 5th April 2023. Early conciliation began on 14th November 2022, and ended on 26th December 2022. The claim was presented to the Tribunal on 25th January 2023, comprising the following complaints:1.1 Discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010;1.2 The failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 to 21 of the Equality Act 2010; and1.3 Harassment contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.[2]In a case management order dated 4th October 2023, EJ Armstrong directed the claimant to make an application by 20th November 2023 if she seeks to rely on expert evidence in support of her personal injury claim.[3]The final hearing, dealing with liability only, took place on 5th to 9th August 2024, when we made the following determinations:3.1 The respondent breached section 15 of the Equality Act by permanently withdrawing the claimant from the apprenticeship course on 20th July 2022, and secondly, by an e-mail sent by Ms Agbai, the service manager, on 27th September 2022.3.2 The above-mentioned e-mail also amounted to harassment contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act.3.3 All other complaints under sections 15, 20-21 and of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed.[4]We gave the following directions for the remedy hearing:4.1 The parties were to provide dates to avoid within 7 days;4.2 The claimant was to provide a schedule of loss by 30th August 2024;4.3 The respondent was to provide a counter-schedule of loss, if so advised, by 13th September 2024.4.4 Both sides were to provide simultaneous disclosure by 14th October 2024;4.5 The respondent was to prepare an agreed hearing bundle by 4th November 2024; and4.6 The parties were to exchange their witness statements by 4th December 2024.[5]The remedy hearing was originally listed on 9th and 10th December 2024, but was postponed at the claimant’s request. It was re-listed on 9th and 10th June 2025, and the claimant was awarded the total sum of £27,437.67 calculated as follows: Injury to feelings £4,000.00 Personal injury £15,000.00 Financial loss £5,178.10 Interest (agreed by the parties in light of the above award) £3,259.57[6]Counsel for the respondent requested written reasons, which request was reiterated in an e-mail from the respondent’s solicitors sent on 2nd July 2025.
THE HEARING
[7]As a reasonable adjustment for the claimant, we took regular breaks, generally this was a 10-minute break after approximately every hour.[8]We heard oral evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the claimant:8.1 The claimant, whose witness statement is dated 4th May 2025; and8.2 Ms Bynoe, the claimant’s friend and a former employee of the respondent, whose witness statement is dated 24th November 2024.[9]The respondent did not rely on any witness evidence.[10]In addition to the above evidence, the Tribunal were provided with a 350-page hearing bundle, and 9-page written closing submissions from Mr Sheppard.[11]In her revised schedule of loss, the claimant claimed the following: Financial loss £10,356.20 Injury to feelings £25,000.00 Personal injury £23,270.00 ACAS 25% uplift £14,656.55 Total (before grossing up) £73,282.75[12]In its counter-schedule of loss, the respondent maintained the claimant’s award should be restricted to injury to feelings amounting to £4,000.00. The Medical Evidence[13]The claimant relied on the following medical evidence:13.1 Her medical records covering the period 22nd April 2021 to November 2023, including a letter from Ms Huntingford, wellbeing practitioner dated 14th June 2023;13.2 Therapy records; and13.3 Letter from Preeja Kugthasan (nurse specialist) dated 4th March 2025.[14]There were other medical records from page 207 onwards in the bundle. The parties were told if they wanted us to consider any documents contained in that section, they should take us to the document and address us on it.[15]The claimant also sought to rely on Dr. Rich’s clinical psychologist’s report dated 31st October 2024 to support her personal injury claim. The respondent objected to this. We heard submissions from both parties regarding this.[16]Paragraph 18 of Employment Judge Armstrong’s case management order made on 4th October 2023, directed the claimant to apply to the Tribunal by 20th November 2023 if seeking permission to rely on an expert report in support of her personal injury. The claimant did not make an application in accordance with that case management order.[17]As stated, by the order 12th August 2024, the parties were to provide disclosure of documents regarding remedy by 14th October 2024. The parties agreed an extension, and subsequently the hearing due to take place on 9th and 10th December 2024 was adjourned at the claimant's request.[18]When the claimant provided her disclosure, she stated she had further documents she intended to rely on. In due course, the respondent chased the claimant to provide further disclosure, when she did so on 4th June 2025, the disclosure included Dr Rich’s report.[19]The claimant has failed to explain why she did not make an application to rely on expert evidence by 20th November 2023. She also did not explain the failure to disclose Dr Rich’s report when the parties were required to provide disclosure for the remedy hearing, noting that by the extended date, she would have received the report. Furthermore, she did not adequately explain why, between 31st October 2024 and 4th June 2025—some eight months later—she did not provide a copy of the report.[20]The position we are faced with is that the report was obtained in circumstances where the respondent was unaware medical evidence was being sought because no application had been made. It meant that the respondent was not involved in the identification of the expert, nor in the instructions that were sent to the expert. At the late stage at which the report was disclosed, it meant the respondent also had no opportunity of even putting questions to the claimant's expert.[21]We took into account the parties’ submissions, the Presidential Guidance on case management, and the overriding objective. In our judgment those weighed in favour of refusing the claimant’s request to rely on Dr Rich’s report.[22]Our reasons are, there has been a repeated failure by the claimant to comply with the Tribunal’s directions, firstly as regards paragraph 18 of Employment Judge Armstrong’s order, and then as regards the extended directions made on for the remedy hearing. There is no explanation for these failures. There would be considerable prejudice to the respondent if the claimant was allowed to rely on expert evidence, which the respondent had no involvement in producing, and the respondent was also required to deal with late expert evidence in these circumstances. We consider that would be contrary to the overriding objective.[23]We also considered the prejudice to the respondent outweighed any prejudice to the claimant if she proceeded without the expert evidence. Ms Brooke-Ward informed us Dr Rich’s report was not relied on specifically for causation.[24]In light of the above, we refused the claimant’s request to rely on Dr Rich’s report.
The Issues
[25]The issues discussed at the hearing, and to be decided on, are as follows:25.1 What financial losses has the discrimination caused the claimant?25.2 What injury to feelings has the discrimination caused the claimant and how much compensation should be awarded for that?25.3 Has the discrimination caused the claimant personal injury and how much compensation should be awarded for that?25.4 Is there a chance that the claimant’s employment would have ended in any event? Should their compensation be reduced as a result?25.5 Did the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures apply?25.6 Did the respondent or the claimant unreasonably fail to comply with it?25.7 If so is it just and equitable to increase or decrease any award payable to the claimant?25.8 By what proportion, up to 25%?25.9 Should interest be awarded? How much?
The Law
[26]Where a tribunal finds that an employer has discriminated against an employee by section 124(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 the tribunal may order the respondent to pay compensation to the complainant. In other words the remedy is discretionary.[27]Where compensation is awarded for discrimination, the central aim of any award is to put the claimant in at the position, so far as is possible, that that she would have been in had the discrimination not occurred (Ministry of Defence v Wheeler [1998] IRLR 23 and Chagger v Abbey National plc [2010] IRLR 47).[28]An award for injury to feelings is intended to compensate the claimant for the anger, distress and upset caused by the unlawful treatment she has received. It is compensatory and not punitive, but the focus is on the actual injury suffered by the claimant and not the gravity of the acts of the respondent (see Komeq v Creative Support Ltd [2019] UKEAT/0275/18).[29]Tribunals have a broad discretion about what level of award to make. The matters compensated for encompass subjective feelings of upset, frustration, worry, anxiety, mental distress, fear, grief, anguish, humiliation, unhappiness, stress and depression (see Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No2) [2003] IRLR 102).[30]The case of Vento identified 3 broad bands of compensation for injury to feelings. There is within each band considerable flexibility, allowing tribunals to fix what is considered to be fair, reasonable and just compensation in the particular circumstances of the case. Compensation must relate to the level of injury to feelings experienced by the particular claimant.[31]As to the bands, these were categorised in Vento as follows: 65. Employment tribunals and those who practise in them might find it helpful if this court were to identify three broad bands of compensation for injury to feelings, as distinct from compensation for psychiatric or similar personal injury.(i) The top band should normally be between £15,000 and £25,000. Sums in this range should be awarded in the most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment on the ground of sex or race. This case falls within that band. Only in the most exceptional case should an award of compensation for injury to feelings exceed £25,000.(ii) (ii) The middle band of between £5,000 and £15,000 should be used for serious cases, which do not merit an award in the highest band.(iii) (iii) Awards of between £500 and £5,000 are appropriate for less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one off occurrence. In general, awards of less than £500 are to be avoided altogether, as they risk being regarded as so low as not to be a proper recognition of injury to feelings. 66. There is, of course, within each band considerable flexibility, allowing tribunals to fix what is considered to be fair, reasonable and just compensation in the particular circumstances of the case.[32]For claims presented on or after 6th April 2022, the Presidential Guidance dated 28th March 2022 updates the bands as follows:32.1 The lower band is £990 to £9,900;32.2 The middle band is £9,900 to £29,600; and32.3 The upper band is £29,600 to £49,300.[33]A tribunal can award damages for personal injury caused by unlawful discriminatory acts (see Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd [1999] IRLR 481 and Virgo Fidelis Senior School v Boyle [2004] IRLR 268). However, it is not always easy to identify where injury to feeling ends and physical and psychiatric injury starts and there is a risk of double counting.[34]There is no absolute requirement for medical evidence to establish a claim for personal injury in the employment tribunal (see Hampshire v Wyatt UKEAT/0013/16). In assessing damages for personal injury employment tribunals adopt the same basis as the courts and will have regard to the judicial college guidelines on assessing general damages.[35]In B A E Systems (Operations) Limited v Konczak [2017] EWCA Civ 1188 the Court of Appeal stated (see paragraph 72): “… the tribunal should seek to find a rational basis for distinguishing between a part of the illness which is due to the employer's wrong and a part which is due to other causes; but whether that is possible will depend on the facts and the evidence. If there is no such basis, then the injury will indeed be, in Hale LJ's words, "truly indivisible", and principle requires that the claimant is compensated for the whole of the injury — though, importantly, if (as Smith LJ says will be typically the case) the claimant has a vulnerable personality, a discount may be required in accordance with proposition 16.[36]A tribunal can award interest on awards of compensation made in discrimination claims under Section 124(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996. Interest is limited to past loss, that is loss to the date of the remedy hearing. The current rate of interest is 8%.[37]Also, under the 1996 Regulations, interest is awarded on injury to feelings from the date of the act of discrimination complained of until the date on which the tribunal calculates the compensation. Interest is awarded on all sums other than compensation for injury to feelings from the mid-point date that is halfway through the period between the date of the discrimination complained of and the date the tribunal calculates the award.[38]It is for the claimant to prove her loss, including proof of the causal link between the unlawful treatment and the loss. Conclusions on Each Head of Loss Injury to feeling[39]We remind ourselves that compensation should be awarded only for the respondent’s conduct which the claimant has proved was unlawful. In this case, that is the discrimination based on withdrawing her from the apprenticeship course which was notified to her on 2nd August 2022, and the e-mail sent on 27th September 2022 which was discrimination and harassment. We also remind ourselves we need to consider the impact of these acts on this claimant. In particular, and to avoid double-recovery, we will consider the impact of the respondent’s unlawful conduct on the claimant, as it affected her during the period 2nd August 2022 to 27th September 2022 when the unlawful acts occurred.[40]When the claimant was informed by Mr Howell on 2nd August 2022 that she had been removed from the apprenticeship course, she says in her witness statement that she was upset, shaking and felt let down. She had hoped to be assigned to a new line manager, and e-mailed Ms Agbai looking for support in that regard. However, when she received Ms Agbai’s response sent on 27th September 2022, questioning how she could remain on the team without Mr Howell being her manager, the claimant says she “… felt completely isolated and in despair” (see page 202 of the bundle).[41]Having regard to the Vento guidelines, while there was not a “one off” incident, the conduct relates to two incidents, which were several weeks apart. We consider this is properly categorised as less serious conduct. Therefore we agree with the respondent that this falls within the lowest band, we also agree with the respondent’s valuation of £4,000.00 as stated in its counter-schedule. Despite the claimant’s updated schedule of loss, counsel for the claimant (more realistically) argued for an award around the mid-point of the lower band. The £4,000.00 awarded is around the lower to mid-point of the lowest band. Personal injury[42]Regarding the claim for person injury, Mr Sheppard’s closing submissions argued:24. Importantly, that there is no diagnosis of PTSD before the ET, and it is submitted no cogent evidence – just mere assertion – that C suffered depression and/or anxiety triggered by the two acts of discrimination upheld by the ET1.25. As C seemed to confirm during X-X, the Schedule of Loss2 and the amounts claimed therein by way of injury to feelings and personal injury, were based on C succeeding in all of her claims. C succeeded in only 3 of her 11 claims. To continue to argue that C is entitled to the original sums claimed in respect of all 11 claims, shows how overstated C’s compensation claims are and further undermines the cogency of her case.26. For the reasons set out below, and in any event, it is submitted that compensation should be restricted to an award for injury to feelings, in the lower band, alone.27. However, on the evidence submitted, we are satisfied that the claimant was diagnosed with stress and anxiety. This is recorded as the reason she is unfit for work in the fit note dated 28th November 2022 covering the period up to 28th February 2023. The subsequent fit note covering three months from 23rd February 2023 records the same reason. Whereas the claimant’s fit notes prior to 28th November 2022 recorded Crohn’s disease as the reason she was unfit. We find this chronology supports the claimant’s case that the prohibited conduct caused her personal injury.28. We accept Ms Brooke-Ward’s submission regarding the period between the last incident of prohibited conduct and the diagnosis of stress and anxiety. Therefore, we find it is more likely than not that some time may elapse between the relevant conduct, the claimant experiencing symptoms, reporting these to her GP, before being diagnosed.29. We also note in a report dated 21st October 2022, the respondent’s occupational health adviser concluded the claimant had work-related stress. 1 One of which constituted discrimination contrary to both section 15 and 26 of the EqA 2010. 2 Which is dated 23 August 2024.30. In her disability impact statement, the claimant states that she was prescribed medication to help her sleep because her anxiety symptoms caused sleep disruption.31. Ms Brooke-Ward relied on Hampshire v Wyatt to argue that a medical report may be helpful but is not essential to support a personal injury claim, and damages may be awarded where no medical report has been obtained.32. As to the cause of the claimant’s stress and anxiety, for instance whether it was the respondent’s unlawful acts or, whether there were other causes, Ms Brooke-Ward argued the claimant’s injury was entirely attributable to the respondent’s unlawful conduct. Alternatively, she relied on B A E Systems (Operations) Limited v Konczak [2017] to argue the injury was not divisible.33. Mr Sheppard did not challenge Ms Brooke-Ward’s interpretation of either Wyatt or Konczak.34. The Tribunal asked the claimant whether she had previously been diagnosed with depression, for instance in the context of managing her chronic Crohn’s disease: she confirmed she had never been diagnosed with any mental health issues before.35. This was consistent with Ms Bynoe’s evidence, who has been the claimant’s friend for around 10 years. She described the claimant as someone who had an outgoing personality, and who was sociable. However, during this period, Ms Bynoe said when she spoke to the claimant on the telephone, the claimant was distressed, crying and worried about the impact of her symptoms on her children. Furthermore, when they met, she was surprised by the claimant’s demeanour saying she was withdrawn and appeared to have gained weight.36. During this period the claimant was referred for talking therapy, and subsequently attended therapy from 12th April 2023 to 14th June 2023. In her first session, the session notes record: Client explained she feels her depression has been caused by difficulties at work, “it's not helping my Crohn's disease. The moment I get stressed my Crohn's flares up.” Client explained when she received an e-mail from employer she would shut down and feel “like whole world is against me”. Client resigned from her job last week and described feeling very relieved by this decision. “I was calling everyone as if I'd won the lottery”. Client explained she now sees herself as a failure, she had been put on a management course at work (social worker) and his look looking forward to this new challenge, she then became sick with Crohn's and was later told she had been taken off the course, “no one explained why they had taken me off the course, I felt so anxious and stressed and like everyone was against me.” Client became very tearful saying it has knocked her confidence and made her feel broken. When client feels stressed she notices her pain is worse, she feels like there is a stone in her stomach and she needs to go to the loo.37. We consider this contemporaneous record shows that the claimant’s symptoms were caused by the respondent’s unlawful acts.38. Having taken the above evidence into account we consider this evidences an injury in the moderate range of the JS Guidelines – consistent with Ms Huntingford’s assessment of her presentation in April 2023 with moderate depression and mild anxiety (see paragraph 40 below). This is supported by the dual diagnosis, albeit her anxiety is diagnosed as mild. In particular, these conditions affected her ability to cope with work, and she was signed off work for several months. It also caused sleep disruption, affected her relationship with her children, and friends: Ms Bynoe described her as going from someone who was outgoing, to being withdrawn. The JSB guidelines also indicate that in cases of work-related stress if symptoms are not prolonged, such cases ordinarily fall within the moderate category.39. In our judgment, an award towards the top of the mid-range of the middle band appropriately reflects the impact of the anxiety and depression on a number of aspects of the claimant’s life. As stated, Mr Sheppard did not challenge Ms Brooke-Ward’s reliance on Konczak. Furthermore, although he correctly pointed out the claimant succeeded in 3 out of 11 of her complaints, he did not address which part of her illness was attributable to the prohibited conduct, and which was not. In the absence of any counterargument, we accept Ms BrookeWard’s submission that to the extent there may be any other causes of the claimant’s injury, the causes of her injury are not divisible.40. According to Ms Huntingford’s 14th June 2023 letter, prior to the talking therapy, in April 2023, the claimant’s symptoms were consistent with moderate depression and mild anxiety.41. However, we do not accept that the claimant’s personal injury resulting from the discrimination and harassment lasted beyond June 2023 as she contends. We consider the evidence shows that she had recovered by around May/June 2023. 42. That is supported by Ms Huntingford’s letter where she records the claimant’s score on the PHQ-9 depression scale had reduced from 16 to 1, and on the GAD-& anxiety scale her score had reduced from 6 to 0.[43]The claimant’s June 2023 therapy session notes described her feeling more positive. Indeed she applied and secured a social work position in around May/June 2023, where she worked for around 3 to 4 weeks, before being signed off work again. The claimant states this was due to the continuing depression and anxiety which she had not recovered from, and she believes she returned to work too soon. However, we find Ms Huntingford’s letter and the claimant’s therapy session notes show that by mid-2023 she had recovered from the depression diagnosed in November 2022. Therefore, in our judgment, the chain of causation has been broken in relation to any subsequent anxiety and/or depression from June 2023 onwards.[44]We find an award of £15,000 for the claimant’s moderate depression and mild anxiety from November 2022 to June 2023 is appropriate.[45]We have specifically considered whether this and the award for injury to feeling amount to double recovery, but we are satisfied that it is not. The damages for injury to feeling are based on the impact of the discrimination on the claimant from 2nd August 2022 to 27th September 2022. Whilst the damages for personal injury covers the period from November 2022 to June 2023. Stepping back and considering the overall amount awarded for non-financial loss, we also consider there has not been double recovery. Financial Loss[46]The uncontested evidence at the liability hearing (adduced by the respondent) was that the claimant had been selected for the apprenticeship management course over another colleague. The claimant’s unchallenged evidence was that employees were selected for the course because they were recognised as having the ability to fulfil managerial roles, and that the respondent was keen to recruit managers internally, and limit the use of managers hired through an agency due to the expense. She also said that Ms Awosika, had applied for and secured her management position before she had completed the management apprenticeship course. Against this background, the claimant was confident that she would have secured a management position if she had not been withdrawn from the course.[47]Ms Brooke-Ward confirmed during her closing submissions, that this head of loss was a loss of chance.[48]Mr Sheppard argued the claimant had provided no supporting evidence to corroborate the value of the financial loss, such as evidence of the salary she would have earned if appointed a manager. However, we note the respondent had failed to adduce any evidence to challenge any aspect of the financial loss claimed. Therefore we see no reason to reject the claimant’s evidence on this issue.[49]Accordingly, we conclude the claimant is entitled to recover damages for this financial loss. We assess this loss of chance at 50%, which is to reflect the degree of uncertainty as to whether she would have successfully completed the course, if so, whether a suitable vacancy would become available, and if it did, whether the claimant would secure that position. ACAS Uplift[50]We award zero for the ACAS uplift. The claimant argued that she submitted a grievance which had not been properly dealt with. While that was raised as part of the background to the claim, it was not a substantive issue in the case, nor was a determination reached on whether she had raised a grievance, and if she had, whether or not it was appropriately dealt with. Without any substantive findings on the grievance, it would not be appropriate to award an uplift. Approved by: