Case 2204699/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Kaur v Gillen De Alwis Solicitors Ltd (in Creditor’s Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2204699/2022
- Decision date
- 16 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Kaur
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London Central CVP hearing on 1 and 2 May 2024, Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston held that the respondent breached the claimant’s contract by dismissing her without notice. The tribunal awarded the claimant £362 net as damages for that breach.
The tribunal also upheld the claimant’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay a compensatory award of £36,062 and recorded that no basic award was payable. The respondent’s counterclaim for breach of contract failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claimant's claim succeeded on the basis that the respondent dismissed her without notice; the tribunal awarded £362 net damages. | Upheld | — | £362 |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996; the tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £36,062 and recorded that no basic award was payable. | Upheld | — | £36,062 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £36,424
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £36,062
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.103A ERA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.