Case 3200064/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Francis v Brook House Pharma Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200064/2021
- Decision date
- 6 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Barrowclough Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Francis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 2 July 2021, Employment Judge R Barrowclough, sitting remotely by Cloud Video Platform, found that Miss S Francis was unfairly dismissed by Brook House Pharma Limited. The tribunal ordered a basic award of £768.75 and a compensatory award of £2,482.80, comprising £2,232.80 for loss of earnings to 12 December 2020 at £279.10 per week and £250.00 for loss of statutory rights.
The judgment also recorded that the Recoupment Regulations applied, with a prescribed period of 16 October 2020 to 12 December 2020 and a prescribed sum of £2,232.80. In a separate award, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,115.20 holiday pay due to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £768.75 and a compensatory award of £2,482.80, made up of £2,232.80 loss of earnings and £250.00 loss of statutory rights. The Recoupment Regulations applied, with a prescribed period of 16 October 2020 to 12 December 2020 and a prescribed sum of £2,232.80. | Upheld | — | £3,252 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,115.20 holiday pay due to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £1,115 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,367
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £769
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,483
- 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.