Case 2305697/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Angela Excell v DKS Healthcare Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305697/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Angela Excell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Angela Excell brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against DKS Healthcare Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation). The respondent did not attend and had not entered a response. The tribunal therefore entered a liability judgment for the claimant under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The judgment records that the respondent title was amended to reflect that it was in voluntary liquidation, and that Ms Kingston and Ms Niegoda were removed as respondents. No contested findings of fact or substantive liability reasoning are set out beyond the Rule 21 default judgment.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £6,500 gross. This comprised a £6,165 basic award and £335 for loss of statutory rights. No separate award for interest, injury to feelings, or other heads of loss was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | No response was entered by the respondent. The tribunal entered a liability judgment in favour of the claimant under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The respondent was ordered to pay £6,500 gross, made up of a £6,165 basic award and £335 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £6,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,500
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,165
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £335
- 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.