Case 2307603/2020 · Employment Tribunal
DAWN STEVENS v Bizzykidz London Ltd by Cvp — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307603/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
DAWN STEVENS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningDawn Stevens brought an unfair dismissal claim against Bizzykidz London Ltd. Employment Judge Martin heard the case by CVP on 17 September 2021. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £5,100 and a compensatory award of £8,772.53. It found that the respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice and increased the compensatory award by 25%, which came to £2,193.14. The footnote to the judgment breaks the compensatory award down as loss of earnings (£4,700.45), unpaid commission (£3,129.29), unpaid pension contributions (£427.68), £500 for loss of statutory rights, and £15 for expenses in finding new employment. The judgment states the total award as '£16.065.67'; the arithmetic of the listed figures is £16,065.67.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim and awarded a basic award of £5,100, a compensatory award of £8,772.53, and a 25% ACAS uplift of £2,193.14. The judgment states the total award as '£16.065.67'; the listed components total £16,065.67. | Upheld | — | £16,066 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,066
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,100
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,773
- 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.