Case 1303595/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Evans v Prees Village Stores Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1303595/2021
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 25 July 2022 before Employment Judge Hindmarch in Birmingham by CVP, the respondent did not attend. The tribunal held that Miss C Evans's complaint of unfair dismissal against Prees Village Stores Limited was well founded and upheld it. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,488 and a further £350 for loss of statutory rights.
The tribunal also upheld Miss Evans's claim for unlawful deduction from wages and awarded £695. It upheld her claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay and awarded £2,268, and it upheld her claim for notice pay and awarded £1,984.
The judgment therefore recorded total monetary awards of £6,785. No discrimination claim, lay panel members, or interest award is recorded in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £1,488 plus £350 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £1,838 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as unlawful deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £695 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded for accrued but untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £2,268 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded as notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,984 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,785
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,488
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £350
- 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.