Case 1600236/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y. Evans v Hexam Training Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600236/2021
- Decision date
- 4 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y. Evans
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms Y. Evans was unfairly dismissed by Hexam Training Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) on 18 November 2020. Her unfair dismissal claim was therefore well-founded and succeeded. The judgment was given by Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan at Wrexham by CVP on 1 February 2022, with the respondent absent and the claimant appearing in person assisted by her husband.
The tribunal awarded a total of £3,497.58 and stated that the Recoupment provisions did not apply. The award comprised a basic award of £1,471.14 and a compensatory award of £2,026.44. The compensatory award was broken down into loss of notice pay of £1,233.18 net, loss of earnings of £352.50 net for two weeks' post-notice losses, pension contributions of £63.84, job-search expenses of £50.00, and loss of statutory rights of £326.92.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 18 November 2020. It awarded a basic award of £1,471.14 and a compensatory award of £2,026.44, made up of loss of notice pay (£1,233.18), loss of earnings (£352.50), pension contributions (£63.84), job-search expenses (£50.00), and loss of statutory rights (£326.92). | Upheld | — | £3,498 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,498
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,471
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,026
- 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.