Case 1403397/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Lillywhite v Mr M Govindasamy t/a Dhana Stores — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403397/2022
- Decision date
- 3 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray-Jones Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Lillywhite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss Lillywhite had been unfairly dismissed and that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages. It ordered payment of £964.25 gross for unpaid wages covering 18 August to 1 September 2022.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £726.75 and a compensatory award of £2,399.32. It then applied a 20% uplift, amounting to £476.86, because of the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievances, bringing the unfair dismissal award to £3,602.93.
The tribunal also ordered a further £969, equivalent to four weeks' pay, under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent failed to issue the claimant with a written statement of particulars of employment. It recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £726.75, compensatory award of £2,399.32, and a 20% ACAS uplift of £476.86. | Upheld | — | £3,603 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross unpaid wages for 18 August to 1 September 2022. | Upheld | — | £964 |
| Other | Four weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to issue a written statement of particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £969 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,536
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £727
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,399
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievances
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.