Case 2411053/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Williams v R1 Fat Lolly Sams Ltd R2 Christian Hercules — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411053/2021
- Decision date
- 11 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all recorded complaints against Fat Lolly Sams Ltd, and on the age discrimination and age-related harassment complaints against both Fat Lolly Sams Ltd and Christian Hercules. The unfair dismissal claim was found well founded because the dismissal followed the claimant asserting statutory rights to breaks under the Working Time Regulations, a statement of terms and conditions of employment, and wage slips. The tribunal awarded £277.20 as a compensatory award for two weeks' or 60 hours' loss of earnings between 19 July 2021, the dismissal date, and 2 August 2021, when the claimant found alternative employment.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £277.20 for 60 hours' unpaid work at £4.62 per hour. The written statement claim was also well founded, with a further award of £277.20 described as 2 weeks' or 60 hours' wages. The extracted judgment text states the unpaid-work period as 'between 26 June 2022 and 19 July 2021', which is internally inconsistent, but the amount awarded is clear.
On the discrimination complaints, the tribunal upheld both direct age discrimination and harassment related to age. It ordered the first and second respondents to pay £2,000 for injury to feelings plus £151.67 interest, making £2,151.67 in total, on a joint and several basis. The judgment records that recoupment provisions do not apply.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for asserting the claimant's statutory right to breaks under the Working Time Regulations, a statement of terms and conditions of employment, and wage slips. The award was £277.20 as a compensatory award for two weeks'/60 hours' loss of earnings from 19 July 2021 to 2 August 2021. | Upheld | — | £277 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld the claim and ordered £277.20 for 60 hours' unpaid work at £4.62 per hour. The judgment states the period as 'between 26 June 2022 and 19 July 2021', which appears inconsistent in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | £277 |
| Other | This was the claim that the claimant was not provided with a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal awarded £277.20, described as 2 weeks'/60 hours' wages. | Upheld | — | £277 |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal upheld the direct age discrimination complaint. The award for this and the linked age harassment complaint was made jointly and severally against both respondents and was not split between the two claims. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal upheld the complaint of harassment related to age. The joint award with the direct age discrimination complaint was £2,000 for injury to feelings plus £151.67 interest, totalling £2,151.67. | Upheld | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,983
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £832
- 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.