Case 2601376/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Denton v Salus Care Group Leicestershire Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601376/2021
- Decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Denton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ahmed sat alone on 23 November 2021. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent did not appear or have representation. The written judgment records that the claim was amended to include a complaint for breach of contract.
The tribunal found that Mrs S Denton had been unfairly dismissed and ordered the respondent to pay a basic award of £1,614.14 and a compensatory award of £27,996.00, making £29,610.14 in respect of unfair dismissal. It also ordered damages for breach of contract in the sum of £1,362.45 net. The judgment records that the Recoupment Regulations do not apply.
The written record does not contain the tribunal's reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing. No lay members are listed, and the decision was issued in written form on 26 November 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards a basic award of £1,614.14 and a compensatory award of £27,996.00, totalling £29,610.14. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not included in the written record. | Upheld | — | £29,610 |
| Breach of contract | The claim was amended to include breach of contract, and the tribunal awarded damages of £1,362.45 net. | Upheld | — | £1,362 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,973
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,614
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £27,996
- 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.