Case 2400756/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Jefferson v Dr J Brown, Dr J Franklin, Dr C Zengeri, Dr M Chavali and Dr S Azam t/a Ash Tree House Surgery FINAL HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400756/2020
- Decision date
- 12 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Jefferson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing on 25-26 January 2021, sitting alone, Judge Brian Doyle found that Mrs C Jefferson had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by Dr J Brown, Dr J Franklin, Dr C Zengeri, Dr M Chavali and Dr S Azam t/a Ash Tree House Surgery. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s amended claim was well-founded.
The judgment awarded a total of £20,836.86. That sum was made up of a basic award for unfair dismissal of £6,446.70, a compensatory award for unfair dismissal of £11,762.40, and an award for wrongful dismissal of £2,627.76. The tribunal also stated that the recoupment regulations did not apply to these awards.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The judgment awards a basic award of £6,446.70 and a compensatory award of £11,762.40 under the unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £18,209 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal also held that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and awarded £2,627.76 for that claim. | Upheld | — | £2,628 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,837
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,447
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,762
- 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.