Case 2400482/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Pimblett v World Adventures Ltd t/a The Adventure People — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400482/2025
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Pimblett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Porter, sitting alone in Manchester on 8 September 2025, held that Miss M Pimblett had been unfairly dismissed by World Adventures Ltd t/a The Adventure People. The judgment states that she was not entitled to a basic award, but she was awarded a compensatory award of £653.00. The tribunal also recorded that the recoupment regulations did not apply.
The separate claim for unlawful deductions from wages was withdrawn and the judgment records that it was dismissed upon withdrawal. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard procedure. The accompanying notice records 17 October 2025 as the relevant decision day and states that interest would accrue at 8% per annum if the award were not paid within 14 days, but no separate interest sum was assessed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It made no basic award and awarded a compensatory award of £653.00; the recoupment regulations did not apply. | Upheld | — | £653 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim of unlawful deductions from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £653
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £653
- 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.