Case 1403144/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Nina Nash v Noyce Insurance Solutions Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403144/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Winfield Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nina Nash
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant's claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and that she had been unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The hearing took place by CVP on 4-6 November 2025 before Employment Judge Winfield, with the Claimant represented by a lay representative and the Respondent by counsel.
On remedy, the Tribunal made no basic award on the basis that a statutory redundancy payment had already been made. The compensatory award was reduced by 25% in accordance with Polkey principles, and no other adjustments were made.
The Respondent was ordered to pay a compensatory award of £910.82, calculated by reference to two days without pay, £320 for loss of statutory rights, and a net salary reduction of £1,385.88 over a six-month period, balanced against a £600 pension benefit gained. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will only follow on request.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Compensatory award reduced by 25% on Polkey principles. No basic award made because a statutory redundancy payment had already been paid. | Upheld | — | £911 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £911
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £911
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey
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.