Case 1803913/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Morris v Adelos Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803913/2021
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr R Webb, Ms J Noble
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Morris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Morris brought claims against Adelos Limited for unfair dismissal and age discrimination. The tribunal at Leeds, hearing the case by CVP on 7 and 8 March 2022 before Employment Judge Maidment with lay members Mr R Webb and Ms J Noble, found that she had been unfairly dismissed.
For that unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal ordered Adelos Limited to pay a compensatory award of £6,965.75. The judgment records that the Recoupment Regulations do not apply to that award.
The claimant's complaint of age discrimination was dismissed. The judgment also records a separate order under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for £1,128 for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment, bringing the total monetary award to £8,093.75.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded a compensatory award of £6,965.75. It stated that the Recoupment Regulations do not apply to that award. | Upheld | — | £6,966 |
| Age discrimination | The claimant's complaint of age discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,094
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £6,966
- 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.