Case 2406305/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Collins v The Maggie Keswick Jencks Cancer Caring Centres Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2406305/2020
- Decision date
- 26 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Collins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss S Collins’s unfair dismissal claim was well-founded. It found that the claimant’s culpable conduct had contributed to the dismissal, so both the basic award and compensatory award were reduced by 20%.
The tribunal recorded that no further reduction was made to the compensatory award under the principles in Poley v A.E. Dayton Services Ltd, and no reduction or uplift was made under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The parties agreed the post-reduction figures. The respondent was ordered to pay £22,982.40 in total, comprising a basic award of £2,582.40 and a compensatory award of £20,400.00. The tribunal also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Job Seeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. The award was reduced by 20% for the claimant’s culpable conduct which contributed to the dismissal, and the parties agreed the resulting figures. | Upheld | — | £22,982 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,982
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,582
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £20,400
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Poley v A.E. Dayton Services Ltd
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.