Case 2409182/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Robinson v The Little Wren Ltd t/a Bluebird Care — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409182/2023
- Decision date
- 29 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Robinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remedy hearing on 23 April 2024, before Employment Judge Eeley sitting via CVP in Manchester, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £1,481.43 in total. That sum was made up of a £715.20 basic award for unfair dismissal, a £366.23 compensatory award for unfair dismissal, and £400 compensation for loss of statutory rights.
The tribunal stated that the amounts took account of deductions for tax, National Insurance, contributory fault, Polkey, and mitigation of loss. It also recorded that no unauthorised deductions from wages were established in the case, so no award was made on that claim.
The written record noted that recoupment provisions did not apply because the claimant had not claimed State benefits. It also recorded that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded £715.20 basic award, £366.23 compensatory award, and £400 compensation for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £1,481 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No unauthorised deductions from wages were established, so no award was made on this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,481
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £715
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £366
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey
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.