Case 2600825/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Mandy Beck v VPS PVT Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600825/2021
- Decision date
- 16 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Lincoln
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Mandy Beck
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the attended full hearing in Lincoln on 1 September 2021, before Employment Judge Hutchinson sitting alone, the tribunal found that Mrs Mandy Beck had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It ordered the respondent, VPS PVT Ltd, to pay compensation of £3,588.00 for that claim.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £8,236.80 and a compensatory award of £2,918.00, producing a total award of £11,154.80 for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal stated that the Recoupment Regulations applied. It recorded a total monetary award of £14,742.80, a prescribed element of £598.00 for the period from 22 June 2021 until 5 July 2021, and an excess over the prescribed element of £14,144.80.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim succeeded in respect of notice. The tribunal ordered compensation of £3,588.00. | Upheld | — | £3,588 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £8,236.80 and a compensatory award of £2,918.00, making £11,154.80 in total for this claim. | Upheld | — | £11,155 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,743
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,237
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,918
- 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.