Case 1804900/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sharon Grantham v Avocet Trust Heard by CVP on 10 and 11 January 2022 — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804900/2021
- Decision date
- 17 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sharon Grantham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Sharon Grantham succeeded in both claims against Avocet Trust. The tribunal held that she was unfairly dismissed and also wrongfully dismissed. The judgment records that the unfair dismissal award was £7,372.13, made up of a basic award of £992.28 and a compensatory award of £6,379.85.
The compensatory award was broken down into £4,966.35 for four months' loss of earnings, £172 for loss of pension, and £661.52 for loss of statutory rights. A further 10% uplift of £579.98 was added for breach of the ACAS Code. The wrongful dismissal damages were separately assessed at £661.52, being two weeks' gross pay.
The judgment states that recoupment provisions did not apply. The total amount payable under the judgment was therefore £8,033.65, combining the wrongful dismissal damages and the unfair dismissal compensation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded £7,372.13 for unfair dismissal, made up of a basic award of £992.28 and a compensatory award of £6,379.85. The compensatory award included £4,966.35 for four months' loss of earnings, £172 for loss of pension, £661.52 for loss of statutory rights, and a 10% uplift of £579.98 for breach of the ACAS Code. | Upheld | — | £7,372 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages were assessed at £661.52, described in the judgment as two weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £662 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,034
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £992
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,380
- 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.