Case 1804923/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Taylor v K Fresh Ltd This has been a remote hearing, by cloud video platform (V): A hearing in person was not practicable because of the present restrictions due to Covid 19. — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804923/2020
- Decision date
- 19 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Taylor brought an unfair dismissal claim against K Fresh Ltd. Employment Judge D N Jones heard the case remotely on 19 March 2021 and found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed.
On remedy, the tribunal found that if the respondent had used a fair procedure there was a 60% chance the claimant would have been dismissed by reason of redundancy in any event. The compensatory award was therefore reduced to reflect that chance.
The tribunal calculated loss of earnings from 15 April 2020 to the date of the hearing at £6,635 and added £300 for loss of statutory rights, producing £6,935 before applying the 60% reduction. The resulting compensation award was £2,774.
The tribunal also stated that the recoupment provisions applied. It recorded a prescribed element of £2,654 for the period 15 April 2020 to 19 March 2021, with the total award exceeding the prescribed element by £120.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It found that had a fair procedure been used there was a 60% chance she would have been dismissed by reason of redundancy in any event, so the compensatory award was reduced accordingly. | Upheld | — | £2,774 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,774
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,774
- 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.