Case 2602936/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Williams v Insulate Realisations Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602936/2018
- Decision date
- 3 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Nottingham on 10 May 2024, Employment Judge M Butler sat alone and heard the case in the Respondent's absence. The Tribunal held that the claims of unfair dismissal, pregnancy related discrimination, and unauthorised deductions from wages were well-founded and succeeded.
The Tribunal ordered a compensatory award for loss of earnings of £22,292.29 net for the unfair dismissal claim. It also awarded £340 net for unauthorised deductions from wages.
For the pregnancy related discrimination claim, the Tribunal awarded £5,000 for injury to feelings. Interest was awarded in the sum of £2,266.30, making the total amount payable £29,898.59.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and succeeded. The compensatory award for loss of earnings was £22,292.29 net. | Upheld | — | £22,292 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The judgment describes this as pregnancy related discrimination and says the claim was well-founded and succeeded. Compensation for injury to feelings was £5,000. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £5,000 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to unauthorised deductions from wages and says the claim was well-founded and succeeded. The award on this head was £340 net. | Upheld | — | £340 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,899
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £22,292
- 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.