Case 2402578/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Joanne Lee v Craven Inns Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402578/2022
- Decision date
- 26 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Joanne Lee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Joanne Lee’s claim for unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal held that she had been unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award only, in the sum of £659.52 under s. 118(1)(a) ERA 1996. The tribunal also recorded that although the claimant had received benefits after her dismissal on 22 December 2021, the recoupment regulations did not apply because the award included no prescribed element.
The tribunal further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in respect of accrued but untaken holiday. It ordered payment of £935.36 gross for that entitlement. The judgment was given orally at the hearing before Judge Miller-Varey sitting alone, and the respondent did not attend.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and awarded a basic award under s. 118(1)(a) ERA 1996 only. It noted that the claimant had been in receipt of benefits after dismissal on 22/12/21, but the recoupment regulations did not apply because the award contained no prescribed element. | Upheld | — | £660 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in respect of accrued but untaken holidays and ordered payment of the gross sum stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £935 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,595
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £660
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
2 references- s. 118(1)(a) ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 article 12
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.