Case 2218856/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L v A Lopez Marin Pegasus Support Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218856/2024
- Decision date
- 31 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss L A Lopez Marin, was represented by Ms E Bacon, trade union representative. The respondent, Pegasus Support Services Ltd, did not appear or have representation at the hearing before Employment Judge A M Snelson in London Central on 19 December 2024.
The tribunal determined that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. No other claims are recorded in the judgment. The decision was entered in the Register and copies sent to the parties on 31 December 2024.
As to remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a compensatory award of £10,705.07. The judgment states that this comprised £10,205.07 for loss of earnings and £500.10 for loss of statutory rights. It also states that the recoupment provisions apply.
The statutory particulars recorded a prescribed element of £4,923.00 for the period 5 December 2023 to 4 June 2024, with the difference between the total award and the prescribed element stated as £5,282.07.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and ordered a compensatory award of £10,705.07. The award was made up of £10,205.07 for loss of earnings and £500.10 for loss of statutory rights. Recoupment provisions were stated to apply. | Upheld | — | £10,705 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,705
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £10,705
- 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.