Case 1805603/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Kilner v Lishmans LLP Heard: By CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 1805603/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Kilner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA Rule 21 judgment had already been given on 12 December 2023, and the hearing on 22 February 2024 before Employment Judge JM Wade was limited to remedy. The tribunal recorded awards for unfair dismissal and for injury to feelings arising from detriments before dismissal. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a basic award of £3,215 and a compensatory award of £21,701.50 for unfair dismissal, both stated to include a 15% ACAS uplift.
The tribunal also made an injury to feelings award of £24,150, again stated to include a 15% ACAS uplift, and said that this award was made in respect of detriments before dismissal and not in connection with dismissal. Interest on the injury to feelings award was assessed at £1,288. The total sum payable was £50,354.50.
The tribunal noted that the recoupment regulations did not apply to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £3,215 and compensatory award of £21,701.50, including a 15% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £24,917 |
| Whistleblowing | Injury to feelings award of £24,150, including a 15% ACAS uplift, plus £1,288 interest. The tribunal stated that this award was made in respect of detriments before dismissal and not in connection with dismissal. | Upheld | — | £25,438 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £50,355
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,215
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £21,702
- 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.