Case 1402381/2021 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr O’ Kane , Consultant — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402381/2021
- Decision date
- 30 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs D Tomasto Cervantes was unfairly dismissed and wrongfully dismissed by Kamelia Kids Day Nursery & Beach School (Camelia Botnar Children’s Centre). On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal recorded that there was a 100% likelihood that a fair procedure would have made no difference to the outcome, so the dismissal was nevertheless treated as unfair but with no further compensatory element recorded for that claim.
The tribunal also upheld the wrongful dismissal claim. It ordered compensation totalling £1,792.49, made up of a basic award of £986.04, £606.45 compensation for wrongful dismissal, and £200.00 for loss of statutory rights. No separate discrimination, whistleblowing, or other claims are identified in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and recorded that there was a 100% likelihood that a fair procedure would have made no difference to the outcome. | Upheld | — | £986 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal also found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. The award for this claim was stated as £606.45 compensation for wrongful dismissal plus £200.00 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £806 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,792
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £986
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.