Case 1305963/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Skeates v Regan Peggs Solicitors Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305963/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Skeates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Skeates brought a claim against Regan Peggs Solicitors Ltd, heard remotely by video on 19 February 2024 before Employment Judge Faulkner. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to add a complaint of breach of contract concerning alleged failure to pay pension contributions.
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and held that her complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. No written reasons were provided in the judgment record, and no separate findings are set out in the extracted text beyond the conclusion that the dismissal was unfair.
The tribunal awarded compensation for unfair dismissal totalling £10,581.11, made up of a basic award of £1,929.00 and a compensatory award of £8,652.11. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were found not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to add a breach of contract complaint about failure to pay pension contributions; no separate merits finding was made on that proposed complaint. | Upheld | — | £10,581 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,581
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,929
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,652
- 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.