Case 2301097/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Mr M Williams, Solicitor — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301097/2018
- Decision date
- 6 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remedy hearing before Employment Judge Andrews sitting alone at London South on 6 September 2019 in the case of Mrs A Sargeant v Brighton & Hove Streamline Ltd. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation to the claimant following her successful unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal assessed the award as a basic award of £990.00 and a compensatory award of £4,666.00. The compensatory award was made up of £4,152.50 for loss of earnings, £450.00 for loss of statutory rights, £27.50 for loss of pension, and £36.00 for expenses incurred. The total payable forthwith was £5,656.00, and the tribunal stated that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This was a remedy judgment only, following the claimant's successful unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded a basic award and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £5,656 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,656
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £990
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,666
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.