Case 2500007/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Pickering v Kidz Village Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500007/2019
- Decision date
- 16 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Pickering
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Miss S Pickering had been unfairly dismissed by Kidz Village Limited, so the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The written record does not set out any other substantive liability findings beyond that single upheld claim.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the claimant was entitled to a basic award under section 119 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, reduced by 60% under section 122(2). It also recorded that there was an 80% chance that, had she not been unfairly dismissed, she would have been dismissed fairly in any event, and that any compensatory award under section 123 would be adjusted to reflect that finding, then increased by 15% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and then reduced by 60% under section 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The extracted text does not include a numerical award figure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 119 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.