Case 1400518/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Warren v Cube Design Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400518/2022
- Decision date
- 2 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Belton Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Warren
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Warren’s claim for unfair dismissal contrary to section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The judgment records that the basic award was nil by consent and the compensatory award was nil, applying Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1988] ICR 142.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for breach of regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. No compensation was ordered for that claim because, by agreement, the respondent had already met its liability in respect of it.
The claim for unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed. No further monetary award is recorded in the judgment beyond the nil awards noted for the unfair dismissal claim and the no-compensation outcome on the working time claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim succeeded under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. The basic award was nil by consent and the compensatory award was nil on the application of Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1988] ICR 142. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Working time regulations | The claim for breach of regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded, but no compensation was to be paid by agreement because the respondent had already met its liability. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services [1988] ICR 142
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.