Case 1305301/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Pearl Revell v Lesk Engineers Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1305301/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flanagan
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Pearl Revell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Pearl Revell was unfairly dismissed by Lesk Engineers Ltd on 13 October 2021. It further found that she would have been fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy with effect from 27 October 2021. The unfair dismissal award was therefore limited to £500, made up of £450 for the two-week period and a £50 uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract claim. It found that bonus pay of £6,000 was due, less £1,500 already paid, and ordered the Respondent to pay £4,500. The judgment was given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 13 October 2021, but that she would have been fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy with effect from 27 October 2021. Compensation was limited to £500, comprising £450 for two weeks' wages and a £50 uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the breach of contract claim well founded. The award was £4,500, calculated as bonus pay of £6,000 less £1,500 already paid to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £4,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £500
- 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.