Case 2200027/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Lawino v Metropolis London Music Limited London Central via CVP 6 and 7 July 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200027/2021
- Decision date
- 7 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Lawino
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Nicolle gave oral reasons on 7 July 2021. The tribunal held that Ms P Lawino’s claim for constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,152. It also awarded a compensatory award of £4,519.65. The judgment records that the compensatory award was reduced by 25% under section 207A(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and then by a further 50% on a Polkey basis to reflect the tribunal’s view that the claimant may have been dismissed in any event.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal under section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 succeeds. It awards a basic award of £2,152 and a compensatory award of £4,519.65, but does not apportion any other claim-specific sums. | Upheld | — | £6,672 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,672
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,152
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,520
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.207A(3) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Polkey
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.