Case 1400466/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Chloe Adams v Plymouth Proprietary Library Association (a charitable incorporated organisation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400466/2021
- Decision date
- 28 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Danvers Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Chloe Adams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Danvers held that Chloe Adams was unfairly dismissed by Plymouth Proprietary Library Association (a charitable incorporated organisation). The tribunal refused her request for reinstatement or re-engagement.
The tribunal awarded £1,301.10 in total. It calculated a basic award of £1,454.88 and deducted the redundancy payment of £1,247.04, leaving £207.84. It then assessed loss of earnings in two periods: period 1 (15 August 2020 to 12 September 2020) was neutralised by notice pay, while period 2 (13 September 2020 to 14 April 2022) produced £5,166.31 before an 80% reduction for the likelihood of dismissal in any event under Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] A.C. 344, leaving £1,033.26. Loss of statutory rights was assessed at £300 and reduced by the same 80% Polkey percentage to £60.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal upheld. Reinstatement or re-engagement was refused. The tribunal awarded total compensation of £1,301.10, comprising a basic award of £207.84 after deduction of a redundancy payment, and compensatory losses of £1,093.26 after the Polkey reduction. | Upheld | — | £1,301 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,301
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £208
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,093
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1988] A.C. 344
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.