Case 2304979/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs H Song v CL Corporation Ltd — 2021

Case reference: 2304979/2019
Decision date: 3 December 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tsamados With
Panel members: Mr K Murphy, Mr R Shaw

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs H Song

Respondent

CL Corporation Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mrs H Song was unfairly dismissed contrary to section 98 ERA 1996. It also found that she was dismissed in breach of her entitlement to minimum statutory notice under section 86 ERA 1996, and that the Respondent had breached its duty to provide particulars of changes to her written statement of employment particulars. Those successful complaints produced the monetary awards recorded in the judgment.

The tribunal rejected the Claimant's complaints of automatic unfair dismissal and detrimental treatment arising from health and safety issues and/or protected disclosures, finding those complaints unfounded. It also rejected the breach of contract claims concerning changes to her job title, working conditions, salary, responsibilities and bonus entitlement.

On remedy, the basic award was calculated on 3 complete years' service from 1 July 2016 to 22 September 2019, using the then statutory weekly cap of £525, and was reduced by 60% for contributory fault to £628.80. The compensatory award was limited by Polkey to two weeks' loss, based on SSP at the effective date of termination, plus pension loss, loss of statutory rights and a 25% ACAS uplift, giving £671.20. Damages for notice pay were assessed at £1,256.25 after the 25% uplift, and compensation for the failure to provide written particulars was £1,050, producing a grand total of £3,606.25.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal unfair contrary to section 98 ERA 1996. The basic award was calculated at 3 x £525 = £1,572 and reduced by 60% for contributory fault to £628.80; the compensatory award was limited by Polkey to two weeks' loss and included SSP, pension loss, loss of statutory rights and a 25% ACAS uplift.	Upheld	—	£1,300
Wrongful dismissal	Damages for breach of the minimum statutory notice entitlement under section 86 ERA 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal awarded 2 weeks' net pay of £1,005 and then added a 25% ACAS uplift of £251.25.	Upheld	—	£1,256
Other	Compensation under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for the Respondent's failure to provide changes to the Claimant's written statement of employment particulars, calculated as 2 weeks' gross pay.	Upheld	—	£1,050
Whistleblowing	The complaints of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment based on protected disclosures, under sections 100(1)(c), 103A and 47B ERA 1996, were found unfounded and dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The complaint of detriment because the Claimant raised health and safety issues under section 44(1)(c) ERA 1996 was found unfounded and dismissed.

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £3,606; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £629; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £671; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.