Case 2500636/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Foster v NE Estates and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500636/2020
- Decision date
- 17 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Members
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mrs S Don, Mr K Smith
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms E Foster
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case by CVP at Newcastle Hearing Centre on 15 and 16 March 2021 and gave oral reasons at the hearing. It dismissed Ms E Foster’s complaints of sex discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages, finding both were not well-founded.
Ms Foster’s complaint of unfair dismissal was upheld. The tribunal ordered the first respondent, NE Estates, to pay £1,659.33. That sum comprised a basic award of £692.30 and a compensatory award of £967.03.
The compensatory award was made up of £579.12 for losses from 3 to 16 March 2020, £300 for loss of statutory rights, and a 10% uplift of £87.91 for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice. The judgment records a total award for unfair dismissal of £1,659.33.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found the complaint of sex discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded and ordered the first respondent to pay £1,659.33. | Upheld | — | £1,659 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,659
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £692
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £967
- 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.