Case 1303061/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MRS HARPREET LYNCH v Jaspers Corporate Catering Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303061/2022
- Decision date
- 21 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MRS HARPREET LYNCH
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge N. Clarke, sitting alone at a CVP hearing on 21 June 2023, recorded that Mrs Harpreet Lynch succeeded in her claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, outstanding holiday pay and maternity discrimination. The respondent did not appear at the hearing.
The tribunal assessed damages in the sum of £2,272.40 for financial losses, £7,500 for injury to feelings, and £733.15 interest, giving a total award of £10,505.55. The judgment does not break the award down further between the individual claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal succeeded, but it does not split the monetary award by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for wrongful dismissal succeeded, but it does not split the monetary award by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that outstanding holiday pay succeeded, but it does not allocate a separate sum to this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment states that maternity discrimination succeeded, but it does not split the award by claim. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,506
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,272
- 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.