Case 2302267/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs C Barker v Petngam Wongprasert and 1 other — 2021

Case reference: 2302267/2020
Decision date: 24 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Andrews Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs C Barker

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Rule 21 default judgment dated 24 June 2021 recorded that the claim succeeded and that remedy would be determined at a 3 hour remedy hearing. The judgment itself did not set out the underlying legal bases or any monetary award.

A later judgment dated 27 October 2021 awarded £22,070.19 for discrimination, comprising £12,830.44 for loss of earnings and £9,239.75 for injury to feelings, with interest included in those figures. The same judgment awarded £3,194.83 as a basic award and £608.54 for loss of statutory rights on the unfair dismissal claim, and £156.06 net for accrued but untaken holiday pay. The available text does not specify the discrimination subtype or protected characteristic.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The available judgment text records compensation for discrimination, but it does not specify the protected characteristic or the exact discrimination subtype.	Upheld	—	£22,070
Unfair dismissal	The award comprised a basic award of £3,194.83 and £608.54 for loss of statutory rights.	Upheld	—	£3,803
Holiday pay	Accrued but untaken holiday pay was awarded net at £156.06.	Upheld	—	£156

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £26,030; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £3,195; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £13,595; compensatory remedy recorded

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.