Case 1601153/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Kelly Susan Thurman v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2025
- Case reference
- 1601153/2024
- Decision date
- 28 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kelly Susan Thurman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found that there was a 50% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and applied a 50% Polkey deduction.
The Tribunal also held that the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay was well-founded. The award was stated as comprising a basic award, compensatory award for 40 weeks, pension loss, and 12 weeks' notice pay, subject to a mitigation of loss deduction and the 50% Polkey deduction, producing a total award of 14,732.96. Reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded. The judgment records a basic award, compensatory award, pension loss, mitigation of loss deduction and 50% Polkey deduction, but does not allocate the final post-deduction total between claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint was in relation to notice pay and was well-founded. The judgment identifies notice pay of 54,483.44 for 12 weeks, before the stated deductions to the overall total. | Upheld | — | £4,483 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,733
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,136
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £14,945
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey deduction
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.