Case 2601120/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Hajdas v Premier Products (Notts) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601120/2023
- Decision date
- 22 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Non-legal
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Mrs C Hatcliff, Mrs L Scott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Hajdas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Nottingham on 21 November 2023 before Employment Judge M Butler with non-legal members Mrs C Hatcliff and Mrs L Scott, gave a unanimous judgment. The respondent did not attend or have representation. The claim of unfair dismissal succeeded, and the tribunal ordered Premier Products (Notts) Limited to pay the claimant £2,088.54 in compensation.
The tribunal also dealt with a claim for a protective award. That claim was found not well-founded and was dismissed. No further written reasons were issued in the judgment text, which states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and would only be provided in writing if requested within 14 days.
The claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed because the tribunal recorded that the payment had already been made. The judgment does not break down the compensation figure further or record any separate remedy components beyond the £2,088.54 awarded on the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,089 |
| Other | Claim for a protective award was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim because the payment had already been made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,089
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,089
- 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.