Case 1806336/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Amanda Dewhirst v Brighouse Patent Walling Systems Limited (in voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806336/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Amanda Dewhirst
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds on 8 and 9 March 2022 before Employment Judge D N Jones. The tribunal found that Mrs Amanda Dewhirst was employed by the first respondent, Brighouse Patent Walling Systems Limited (in voluntary liquidation), and not by the second respondent, Younger Homes (Northern) Limited. The claim against the second respondent was dismissed.
The tribunal held that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed by the first respondent. It awarded £14,144.52, made up of a basic award of £29.58 and a compensatory award of £14,114.94. The judgment records that the recoupment provisions apply, with a prescribed element of £13,901.49 and a stated excess of £206.22; those recoupment figures do not arithmetically match the award amounts set out in paragraph 4, so they are recorded as stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by the first respondent and not by the second respondent. The claim against the second respondent was dismissed. The award for the unfair dismissal was stated as £14,144.52, comprising a basic award of £29.58 and a compensatory award of £14,114.94. The judgment also records that the recoupment provisions apply, with a prescribed element of £13,901.49 and a stated excess of £206.22, which does not arithmetically align with the award figures given in paragraph 4. | Upheld | — | £14,145 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,145
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £30
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £14,115
- 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.
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.