Case 1403620/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Jehu v Ms Carol Shaw t/a The Pet Spa — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403620/2022
- Decision date
- 18 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray-Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Jehu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the Claimant's application to strike out the Response under rule 37(1)(b) and (c). It then found that Miss E Jehu was unfairly dismissed by Ms Carol Shaw t/a The Pet Spa, and that the claim for breach of contract in respect of notice pay was well founded.
The claim for a statutory redundancy payment was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,000, a compensatory award of £717, and £1,792.50 for notice pay. It also applied a 20% uplift to the compensatory award and the notice pay award because of the Respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievances, producing an uplift of £501.90.
The total award was £5,011.40. The tribunal also stated 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 | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,000 and a compensatory award of £717. It also applied a 20% uplift to the compensatory award for the Respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievances. | Upheld | — | £2,860 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was in respect of notice pay. The tribunal awarded £1,792.50 for notice pay and applied a 20% uplift to that award for the ACAS Code breach. | Upheld | — | £2,151 |
| Redundancy | The statutory redundancy payment claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,011
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,000
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £717
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(b) and (c)
- ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievances
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.