Case 2304090/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Medici v Shawmind — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304090/2022
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Medici
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of victimisation against the respondent, Shawmind, arising from the extension of her probation, being shouted at, and her dismissal. The respondent did not attend the hearing on 5 March 2025 before Employment Judge Heath, sitting at London South. The tribunal found all three complaints of victimisation to be well-founded and they succeeded.
The tribunal awarded the claimant damages totalling £21,759.14. This comprised £10,000 for injury to feelings, £8,663.10 for loss of earnings, £2,159.34 in interest on the injury to feelings award (calculated at 8% per annum over 986 days), and £936.70 in interest on the loss of earnings award (calculated at 8% per annum over 493 days).
Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing, with no request recorded for written reasons in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Three acts of victimisation found well-founded: extension of probation, being shouted at, and dismissal. Respondent did not attend the hearing. | Upheld | — | £21,759 |
| Victimisation | Three acts of victimisation found well-founded: extension of probation, being shouted at, and dismissal. Respondent did not attend the hearing. | Upheld | — | £21,759 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,759
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £8,663
- 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.