Case 1403765/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Jane Elizabeth Crawford v Stedham with Iping Parish Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403765/2018
- Decision date
- 18 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Representation
- Venue
- Havant Justice Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jane Elizabeth Crawford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Havant Justice Centre on 16, 17 and 18 March 2020 held that Jane Elizabeth Crawford was constructively and unfairly dismissed by Stedham with Iping Parish Council. On the dismissal element, the tribunal recorded a basic award of £3,633.05, a compensatory award of £3,498.56 and loss of statutory rights of £300.00, producing a total award for dismissal of £7,431.61 before any reduction.
The tribunal then reduced the dismissal award by 10% because of the claimant's failure to comply with the ACAS grievance procedure, deducting £743.16 and leaving £6,688.45 on the dismissal claim. It also made additional awards of £248.72 for unpaid leave, £196.66 for unpaid overtime, and £25.00 for pay for home office (last quarter of year). The total award payable to the claimant was £7,158.83.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that the claimant was 'constructively and unfairly dismissed'. The dismissal award was £7,431.61 before a 10% reduction of £743.16 for failure to comply with the ACAS grievance procedure, leaving £6,688.45. | Upheld | — | £6,688 |
| Other | The tribunal also awarded £248.72 for unpaid leave, £196.66 for unpaid overtime, and £25.00 for pay for home office. The extracted text does not specify the statutory label for these heads. | Upheld | — | £470 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,159
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,633
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,499
- 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.