Case 1401344/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Representing herself For the 1st v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401344/2019
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Representing herself For the 1st
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at Southampton by CVP on 13, 14 and 15 January 2021 before Employment Judge Dawson, the tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the 2nd respondent. It awarded a basic award of £164.10 and a compensatory award of £3,779.20.
The tribunal also found that the claimant's claim against the 1st respondent under regulation 15 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 was well founded and ordered the 1st respondent to pay £410.50.
All other claims were dismissed. The judgment records that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 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
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against the 2nd respondent. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £164.10 and a compensatory award of £3,779.20. | Upheld | — | £3,943 |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Claim against the 1st respondent under regulation 15 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. | Upheld | — | £411 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,354
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £164
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,779
- 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.