Case 1801708/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Lee v Airline Taxis Limited AT A HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801708/2020
- Decision date
- 9 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Lee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by telephone on 9 June 2020 before Employment Judge Lancaster, with the respondent entering no appearance and not attending. The tribunal proceeded under rule 21. Ms T Lee succeeded on automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA 1996 because she had alleged an infringement of a statutory right, on wrongful dismissal in breach of contract, and on an unlawful deduction from wages claim relating to accrued holiday pay due at termination.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £5,440 for 18 weeks' loss of earnings from the expiry of the proper notice period on 5 February 2020 to the hearing date, and £12,600 for a further 40 weeks' future loss of earnings. It added a 25% uplift of £4,510 to the unfair dismissal compensatory award because of the total failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures.
For the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded £420 in lieu of notice, calculated by reference to the claimant's average gross pay over the preceding 12 weeks, and a further 25% uplift of £105 for the same ACAS failure. It also awarded £546 gross for 1.3 weeks' holiday pay due and an additional £200 under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for further financial losses said to have been attributable in part to the final wage deduction.
The tribunal further awarded £1,680 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to give written particulars of employment. It recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied, with a total monetary award of £25,501, a prescribed element of £5,440, a prescribed period from 5 February 2020 to 9 June 2020, and an excess over the prescribed element of £20,061.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 104 ERA 1996 because the claimant had alleged an infringement of a statutory right. The award comprised £5,440 for past loss, £12,600 for future loss, and a £4,510 uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Code. | Upheld | — | £22,550 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Wrongful dismissal in breach of contract. The award comprised £420 in lieu of notice and a 25% uplift of £105 under section 207 TULRCA 1992. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of accrued holiday pay due on termination. The award comprised £546 gross holiday pay and an additional £200 under section 24(2) ERA 1996 for related financial losses. | Upheld | — | £746 |
| Other | Award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to give a written statement of particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,680 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,501
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £18,040
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 104 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 rule 21
- section 207 TULRCA 1992
- section 24(2) ERA 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.