Case 2400450/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Stalker-Jones v Bayfield’s Group Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2400450/2025
- Decision date
- 8 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr Q Colborn, Ms S Moores
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Stalker-Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a hearing in Manchester on 6–8 May 2026, the Tribunal found Mrs D Stalker-Jones's complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and held that she had been unfairly dismissed by Bayfield’s Group Limited. Summary reasons were given orally, and the written judgment does not record the underlying factual findings or legal reasoning.
The parties agreed terms as to remedy. By consent, the Tribunal ordered Bayfield’s Group Limited to pay Mrs D Stalker-Jones £18,000 within 14 days of the judgment as compensation for unfair dismissal. The judgment does not divide that sum into basic and compensatory award components, and it records that the recoupment regulations do not apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was found well-founded. The £18,000 remedy was agreed by the parties and ordered by consent as compensation for unfair dismissal; the judgment does not allocate it between basic and compensatory award components. | Upheld | — | £18,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,000
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.