Case 2303279/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Lu Firth v Morley College Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303279/2022
- Decision date
- 13 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Krepski Representation
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lu Firth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Krepski, sitting in London South via CVP on 13 January 2023, held that Lu Firth’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. The judgment records that the tribunal awarded £896.76 in respect of the unfair dismissal claim, comprising a basic award of £596.76 gross and a compensatory award of £300.
The tribunal also found that Morley College Limited was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. The written record does not separate out any distinct monetary award for the breach of contract finding, and the only sums recorded are those awarded on the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment notes that where a sum has been awarded gross, the claimant is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions that may become due. No written reasons were provided because the reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons appears in the record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. It awarded £896.76 in total, made up of a basic award of £596.76 gross and a compensatory award of £300. | Upheld | — | £897 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. No separate monetary sum was stated for this finding. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £897
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £597
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £300
- 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.