Case 1310732/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Edginton v CMK Electrical Limited (in voluntary creditor’s liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1310732/2022
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Edginton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Maxwell, sitting alone at Birmingham by CVP on 18 March 2024, found that the Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against CMK Electrical Limited (in voluntary creditor's liquidation) was well-founded and succeeded. The Respondent did not attend and the Claimant appeared in person.
The Tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,569.50 and a compensatory award of £500, together with a 25% uplift of £642.38 on the basic award and £125 on the compensatory award. The Claimant's separate complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was also well-founded and succeeded, with unpaid wages of £5,200 awarded.
The judgment as provided does not set out detailed reasoning or reference specific legal tests; it records the outcome and the sums payable.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £2,569.50 plus 25% uplift £642.38; compensatory award £500 plus 25% uplift £125. Figures sum to £3,836.88; rounded to nearest GBP integer. | Upheld | — | £3,836 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages of £5,200 awarded. | Upheld | — | £5,200 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,037
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,212
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £625
- 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.