Case 1301453/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Susan Regan v Park Lane Centre and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301453/2022
- Decision date
- 7 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Susan Regan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's employment transferred under regulation 3(1)(a) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 from Park Lane Centre to Stirchley and Brookside Parish Council on 1 January 2022. Park Lane Centre was discharged from the proceedings.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against Stirchley and Brookside Parish Council and found that she was unfairly dismissed on 6 January 2022. The judgment does not set out further findings in the extracted text beyond the liability outcome and the transfer/discharge point.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered the second respondent to pay £9,851.22 for unfair dismissal. That sum was made up of a basic award of £1,969.47, a compensatory award of £6,305.40, and an uplift of £1,576.35 for failure to comply with the ACAS code on discipline and grievance procedures. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied, with a prescribed element of £6,305.40 attributable to the period 1 March 2022 to 7 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the second respondent on 6 January 2022. The award comprised a basic award of £1,969.47, a compensatory award of £6,305.40, and an uplift of £1,576.35 for failure to comply with the ACAS code on discipline and grievance procedures. | Upheld | — | £9,851 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,851
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,969
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,305
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.