Case 2302294/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs F Auger v Elderly Accommodation Counsel — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302294/2021
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Smith
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs F Auger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs F Auger’s claim for a redundancy payment was found not well-founded and was dismissed. Her unfair dismissal claim was found well-founded and was upheld. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,375 and a compensatory award of £319.41, giving a grand total of £3,694.41.
The tribunal recorded that the Recoupment Regulations applied. It identified a prescribed element of £319.14 for the period from 10 March 2021 to 17 March 2021, with the excess of the grand total over the prescribed element being £3,375.
The tribunal also found Mrs Auger’s notice pay claim well-founded and awarded £2,363.99 gross. Her holiday pay claim was likewise well-founded, and she was awarded £1,191.65 gross in respect of holiday accrued but not taken or paid on termination of employment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,375 and a compensatory award of £319.41. The Recoupment Regulations applied. | Upheld | — | £3,694 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was awarded in the gross sum of £2,363.99. | Upheld | — | £2,364 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was awarded in the gross sum of £1,191.65 in respect of holiday accrued but not taken or paid on termination of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,694
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,375
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £319
- 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.