Case 1403940/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Step-Marsden, counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403940/2020
- Decision date
- 27 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Step-Marsden, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. It also dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim. The hearing was conducted by video, with both parties represented, before Employment Judge Dawson sitting alone at Southampton on 12 October 2021.
Following an oral judgment, and at the request of the parties and by consent, the tribunal awarded a single global sum of £1,937.11 in respect of the claimant's basic and compensatory awards. The judgment states that the figure included an uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Conduct. The award was ordered to be paid by the respondent.
The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. It also records that the recoupment provisions did not apply to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and awarded a single global sum of £1,937.11 in respect of basic and compensatory awards, including an uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Conduct. The judgment does not split that global amount between heads of loss. | Upheld | — | £1,937 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,937
- across all upheld claims
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.