Case 2410363/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Hough v Lynn Pinder t/a The Bakeaway — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410363/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y Hough
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Y Hough's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. It calculated a basic award of £1,182.24 on six years' service and a weekly wage of £131.36, then reduced that amount by 50% to £591.12 because of conduct contributing to the dismissal. It accepted wage loss of £1,839.04 for 12 June 2019 to 19 September 2019 and £919.52 for 19 September 2019 to 26 December 2019 on a reduced basis because the claimant had not fully mitigated her loss.
The tribunal also applied a 25% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and section 124A ERA 1996 because the respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice in the disciplinary procedure. It awarded £525.44 for failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, but that sum was included in the overall compensatory total of £3,973.74 before the tribunal reduced the compensatory award by 50% under section 123(6) ERA 1996 to £1,986.87.
The tribunal separately awarded £250 for loss of statutory rights and £234.36 for accrued but untaken holiday under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The claim for compensation for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 ERA 1996 was dismissed as without merit. The claimant's costs application under rule 77 was also dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. It set a basic award of £1,182.24, reduced by 50% to £591.12 under section 122(2) ERA 1996 because of the claimant's conduct. It also set a compensatory award made up of wage loss, a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code, and the written-particulars sum before reducing the overall compensatory figure by 50% to £1,986.87. A further £250 was awarded for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. The judgment stated an award of £525.44 based on four weeks' wages, but that sum was then included in the overall compensatory total before the 50% reduction applied under section 123(6) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £525 |
| Working time regulations | Award for non-payment of accrued but untaken holiday under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £234 |
| Other | Claim for compensation for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 ERA 1996 was dismissed as without merit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,062
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £591
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,987
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- sections 118(1)(a) and 119 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 124A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 77 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.