Case 2303650/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Killick v Ambrose Design Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303650/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Killick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Heath, sitting alone at London South (remotely by CVP) on 2 December 2024, considered claims brought by Mrs E Killick against Ambrose Design Services Limited. The claim for wrongful dismissal (notice pay) was found not well-founded and was dismissed. The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded and the claimant was held to have been unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also found that there was a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, but in a period of four months from the date of dismissal. The compensatory award was therefore limited to that period.
The parties agreed the figures, and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a net compensatory award of £7,995.04 (£8,797.28 less mitigation of £802.24). Written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days, as reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for wrongful dismissal (notice pay) found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. Tribunal found a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, but in a period of four months from the date of dismissal (Polkey-type reduction reflected in the agreed compensatory figure). | Upheld | — | £7,995 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,995
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,995
- 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.