Case 1301488/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Gilbert v FMJ Products Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301488/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr Morrison, Mr Simpson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Gilbert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sitting in Birmingham on 5, 6, 7 and 8 March 2024 before Employment Judge Flood, Mr Morrison and Mr Simpson found the complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 well founded and held that Ms Gilbert was unfairly dismissed by FMJ Products Limited. It awarded a basic award of £2,755 and a compensatory award of £24,267.62, making an unfair dismissal award of £27,022.62 before the section 38 increase.
The tribunal said that the Universal Credit received by the claimant after dismissal was subject to recoupment under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996. It identified a prescribed element of £19,686.12 for the period from 6 January 2023 to 8 March 2024, and said the amount by which the monetary award exceeded that prescribed element was £7,336.50.
Separately, the tribunal found that the respondent failed in its duty to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and increased the above award by £2,204 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, being four weeks' gross pay. The complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18(4) Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint well founded and awarded a basic award of £2,755 and a compensatory award of £24,267.62. It identified a prescribed element of £19,686.12 for recoupment purposes, covering 6 January 2023 to 8 March 2024, and stated that Universal Credit received after dismissal was subject to recoupment. | Upheld | — | £27,023 |
| Other | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of the main terms of employment complying with section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and increased the above award by £2,204 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, being four weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £2,204 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The complaint under section 18(4) Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,227
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,755
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £24,268
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- section 18(4) Equality Act 2010
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.