Case 2204408/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Lawrence v SamKnows Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204408/2021
- Decision date
- 31 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Lawrence
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Senior Product Designer from 1 December 2020 to 1 July 2021. Her contract provided for a three-month probationary period, after which employment would be confirmed if satisfactory, and stated that any amendment had to be in writing and signed by both parties. The tribunal found that the respondent purported on 26 February 2021 to extend probation to 31 March 2021, but that this was ineffective because the contract did not allow unilateral extension and there was no signed written variation.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant’s probation ended on 28 February 2021 and that she was then entitled to apply for post-probation benefits, including private healthcare. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that she asked a manager, Mr Ruber, about joining the healthcare scheme in about March 2021, was not given a clear answer, and was instead told to use a privately paid online consultation, which she did at a cost of £50. It also accepted her evidence that she had not been told about or offered the AXA insurance during her employment, rejecting the respondent’s suggestion that the cover must have been offered and declined.
The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to provide the private healthcare insurance and that this was a breach of contract. At the start of the hearing, it clarified that damages for injury to feelings were not available in a breach of contract claim, so the case proceeded only on the alleged loss of healthcare benefits. The only reliable evidence of value was the respondent’s AXA quotation of £569.12 for 12 months, which the tribunal pro-rated at £47.42 per month and £189.70 for the period from 1 March 2021 to 1 July 2021.
The respondent paid the rounded sum of £190 into the claimant’s bank account in September 2021. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant had already been fully compensated for the value of the healthcare insurance not provided during employment, and no further damages were due.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent breached the contract by unilaterally extending probation and failing to provide private healthcare insurance after 28 February 2021. The claimant originally referred to injury to feelings, but the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to award that in a breach of contract claim, so the case proceeded on loss of healthcare benefits only. The claimant was later paid £190 in September 2021 and was found to have been fully compensated, so no damages were awarded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
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.