Case 1304436/2021 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Prestige Dental Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304436/2021
- Decision date
- 19 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 21 March 2022 the tribunal had determined that the respondent subjected the claimant to direct sex discrimination by constructively dismissing her. The 19 January 2023 hearing before Employment Judge Perry, sitting alone at Centre City Tower, Birmingham via the Cloud Video Platform, was the remedy hearing. The claimant appeared in person and there was no appearance for the respondent.
The tribunal assessed the award payable to the claimant at £17,588.00, broken down as compensation flowing from the discrimination of £7,200.00 with interest of £396.00, and injury to feelings of £9,000.00 with interest of £992.00. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment records that at a prior hearing on 21 March 2022 the tribunal determined the respondent subjected the claimant to direct sex discrimination by constructively dismissing her. This 19 January 2023 judgment is the remedy decision quantifying that single award. | Upheld | Sex | £17,588 |
| Constructive dismissal | The constructive dismissal was the mechanism of the direct sex discrimination found at the 21 March 2022 liability hearing; the remedy is consolidated into the single £17,588 award and not separately apportioned in this document. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,588
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,200
- 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.