Case 1302862/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MRS CAROL JONES v Asda Stores Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302862/2022
- Decision date
- 17 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ali Members
- Panel members
- Mrs R Forrest, Mr P Simpson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MRS CAROL JONES
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that Mrs Carol Jones's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. It awarded damages in the total sum of £27,924.06.
The complaint of direct sex discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal. The complaints of direct age discrimination, harassment related to age, and unlawful deduction from wages were found not well founded and dismissed.
The judgment records that the Recoupment Regulations apply. The total monetary award was £27,924.06, with a prescribed element of £12,571.20 attributable to the period from 8 February 2022 to 20 September 2022, and £15,352.86 exceeding the prescribed element.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint succeeds and awards damages in the total sum of £27,924.06; no component breakdown is given. | Upheld | — | £27,924 |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct sex discrimination is dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct age discrimination is not well founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that harassment related to age is not well founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages is not well founded and is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,924
- across all upheld claims
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.