Case 2205135/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr v K Chun The Dapper Clinic Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2205135/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central on 16 April 2024 before Employment Judge A M Snelson, sitting alone. The Claimant was represented by Mr B Holland, a solicitor acting pro bono; the Respondent did not appear and was not represented. The Tribunal determined both complaints in the Claimant's favour.
The complaint of wrongful dismissal was found to be well-founded, with damages assessed as 11 weeks' net pay at £1,320.00. The complaint of unfair dismissal was also found to be well-founded. The Tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,980.00 (16.5 x £120) and a compensatory award of £4,212.50, comprising loss of earnings of £3,120.00 (26 x £120), lost statutory rights of £250.00, and a 25% ACAS uplift of £842.50.
The total sum ordered payable to the Claimant is £7,512.50. The Tribunal noted that the recoupment provisions do not apply. The judgment as transcribed does not set out the underlying factual findings or reasoning, so no further detail on the basis of the dismissal is recorded here.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages representing 11 weeks' net pay. | Upheld | — | £1,320 |
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £1,980.00 plus compensatory award £4,212.50 (loss of earnings £3,120.00, lost statutory rights £250.00, ACAS uplift 25% £842.50). | Upheld | — | £6,193 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,513
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,980
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,213
- 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.
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.