Case 1400239/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Nowak v South Coast Hotels Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400239/2019
- Decision date
- 21 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
- Panel members
- Mr Flanagan, Mr Shah
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Nowak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Southampton, sitting on 4 to 6 January 2021 before Employment Judge Dawson with Mr Flanagan and Mr Shah, found Miss M Nowak’s unfair dismissal claim well-founded. It ordered a basic award of £2,280 and a compensatory award of £1,021.01.
It also found that the respondent was in breach of contract and awarded damages of £468.31. Separately, pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £760, said to be equivalent to two weeks’ wages.
The judgment dismisses the discrimination claim. The extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic for that claim. The recoupment regulations did not apply because the tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had not received any relevant benefits between termination of employment and the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and awarded a basic award of £2,280 plus a compensatory award of £1,021.01. | Upheld | — | £3,301 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract and ordered damages of £468.31. | Upheld | — | £468 |
| Other | The judgment dismisses 'the claim of discrimination' but the extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,529
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,280
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,021
- 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.