Case 1402483/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Tamplin v Dignity Pet Crematorium Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1402483/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Tamplin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the Respondent, Dignity Pet Crematorium Limited, unfairly dismissed the Claimant, Miss L Tamplin. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 were held to apply in this case.
Remedy was ordered by consent. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £7,683.33, comprising a basic award of £1,761.63 and a compensatory award of £5,921.70 for past loss of earnings from 27 August 2024 to 26 October 2024. The compensatory period reflects the tribunal's finding that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed within 3 months of the date of her dismissal.
The prescribed element for recoupment purposes was £5,921.70, covering the period 27 August to 26 October 2024, with the excess of £1,761.63 payable immediately. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the rules.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy ordered by consent. Compensatory award limited on the basis of a finding that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed within 3 months of the date of her dismissal. | Upheld | — | £7,683 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,683
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,762
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,922
- 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.