Case 2303740/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Anderson v Nelsons SE1 Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303740/2019
- Decision date
- 13 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at London South on 13 February 2020 found that Miss E Anderson had been unfairly dismissed by Nelsons SE1 Ltd. However, the tribunal made no award of compensation for the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal also rejected the Claimant's breach of contract complaint. It held that she was not entitled to damages on that basis and dismissed that claim as unfounded.
In addition, the tribunal awarded the Claimant £423.08 because the Respondent failed to provide her with a written statement of her main terms and conditions of employment. No further split of that sum was given in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the Claimant was unfairly dismissed, but made no award of compensation for that claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the Claimant was not entitled to damages for breach of contract and dismissed that complaint as unfounded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal awarded £423.08 for the Respondent's failure to provide a written statement of the Claimant's main terms and conditions of employment. | Upheld | — | £423 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £423
- across all upheld claims
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.