Case 2203521/2019 · Employment Tribunal
MS LITA EVANS v The House of Commons Commission — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203521/2019
- Decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MS LITA EVANS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge P Klimov, heard the case remotely on 5, 6 and 7 May 2021 and found that Ms Lita Evans was unfairly dismissed by the House of Commons Commission. The extract does not set out the tribunal's full reasoning, but the operative judgment records the unfair dismissal finding in express terms and notes that written reasons had been requested by the respondent after oral reasons were given at the hearing.
No monetary figure was fixed in this judgment. The tribunal ordered that compensation for unfair dismissal was to be determined at a remedy hearing to be listed on the first available date. It also directed that no deductions were to be made from the claimant's basic or compensatory award by reason of Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd or under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Compensation was to be determined at a later remedy hearing. The tribunal directed that no deductions be made from the basic or compensatory award by reason of Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd or under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.