Case 2408559/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Quilliam v DWS Realisations Limited (In creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408559/2020
- Decision date
- 15 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Quilliam
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name to DWS Realisations Limited (formerly Dave Whelan Sports Limited). It then found that Mrs J Quilliam's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £9,690.24 and a compensatory award of £1,468.60 on that claim.
The tribunal also found the claimant's wrongful dismissal claim, framed as notice pay, to be well founded. It awarded twelve weeks' pay at £346.08 per week, producing an award of £4,152.96.
The age discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and did not succeed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 of £9,690.24 and a compensatory award of £1,468.60. | Upheld | — | £11,159 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim (notice pay) well founded and awarded twelve weeks' pay at £346.08 per week. | Upheld | — | £4,153 |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held that the age discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,312
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,690
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,469
- 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.