Case 1600927/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Evans v Louise Ceri Thomas T/A Dizzy Kidz Play Centre and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600927/2020
- Decision date
- 13 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Davies Representation
- Venue
- Wrexham via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs S Evans
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Mrs S Evans was an employee at all material times of the First Respondent, Louise Ceri Thomas T/A Dizzy Kidz Play Centre, and that she was unfairly dismissed. The written judgment does not set out the oral reasons given at the hearing; it records only the outcome and the monetary award made on the unfair dismissal claim.
The First Respondent was ordered to pay £5,984, made up of a basic award of £1,667 and a compensatory award of £4,317. The parties agreed that half of the total award would be paid immediately and the balance by equal monthly instalments, including any interest, on or before 12 February 2021. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 as amended were stated not to apply.
No order was made against the Second Respondent, Dizzy Kidz Tredegar Limited.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the Claimant was an employee at all material times of the First Respondent and was unfairly dismissed. The monetary award is stated as a single sum of £5,984, comprising a basic award of £1,667 and a compensatory award of £4,317. | Upheld | — | £5,984 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,984
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,667
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,317
- 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.