Case 3200182/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Ms G Wilkin v Harold Wood Pre School Limited — 2025

Case reference: 3200182/2025
Decision date: 13 August 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Moor Representation

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms G Wilkin

Respondent

Harold Wood Pre School Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Moor heard this matter at the London East Hearing Centre in public by video on 13 August 2025. The claimant Ms G Wilkin was represented by her partner Mr Wakefield; the respondent (Harold Wood Pre School Limited) was represented by its director Mrs Fenn.

The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. The breach of contract / wrongful dismissal complaint was also upheld, with damages of £1,276.31 (6 weeks' gross pay at £212.71/week). The unlawful deduction of wages complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.

For unfair dismissal, the Tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,595.32 (6 complete years' service, 3 years over age 42, at gross weekly pay of £212.71) and a compensatory award of £627.00 (3 weeks' net pay at £209/week for the period 10 January to 31 January 2025). Total monetary award £3,498.63. The recoupment regulations apply only to the £627 compensatory award and only to any post-28 January 2025 increase in the claimant's UC.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Basic award £1,595.32 (6 complete years' service of which 3 over age 42) + compensatory award £627.00 (3 weeks net pay).	Upheld	—	£2,222
Wrongful dismissal	Damages for breach of contract: 6 weeks' gross pay at £212.71/week.	Upheld	—	£1,276
Unlawful deduction from wages	Withdrawn by the claimant during the hearing.	Withdrawn	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £3,499; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £1,595; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £627; compensatory remedy recorded

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.