Case 1602362/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L. Smith v Leah Ltd t/a Miskin Manor Hotel & Health Centre HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602362/2020
- Decision date
- 19 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms. W. Morgan, Mr. C. Stephenson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L. Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan and lay members Ms. W. Morgan and Mr. C. Stephenson, heard the case on 12-13 August 2021. It unanimously held that Ms L. Smith's claims that she was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by Leah Ltd t/a Miskin Manor Hotel & Health Centre on 16 October 2020 were well-founded and succeeded.
The parties then reached a settlement, and the tribunal made no determination of remedy beyond recording the agreed terms in the judgment. The settlement provided for £1,280.32 in respect of the wrongful dismissal finding and £1,240.62 in respect of the unfair dismissal finding, making a total of £2,520.94. The tribunal also recorded that the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Ms Smith's claim of direct sex discrimination failed and was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim succeeded. The parties then reached a settlement, and the tribunal recorded the agreed sum of £1,240.62 in respect of the unfair dismissal finding. | Upheld | — | £1,241 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim succeeded. The tribunal recorded the agreed settlement sum of £1,280.32 in respect of the wrongful dismissal finding. | Upheld | — | £1,280 |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant's claim of direct sex discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,521
- 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.