Case 3201894/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Diable v Destination Education — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201894/2021
- Decision date
- 13 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Diable
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss A Diable was unfairly dismissed by Destination Education. The judgment records an effective date of termination of 27 November 2020 and states that one week’s notice was given. No other causes of action are identified in the judgment text supplied.
The appendix sets out the award calculation. For the basic award, the tribunal used weekly gross pay of £499.85 and applied 0.5 x 2 x 499.85, producing £499.85 before a 50% reduction to reflect conduct, leaving £249.93. For the compensatory award, the tribunal included £500 for loss of statutory rights and £11,277.20 for loss of earnings calculated over 27.5 weeks at weekly net pay of £410.08, giving £11,777.20 before the same 50% reduction for conduct.
After the conduct reduction, the compensatory award was £5,888.60 and the total award was £6,138.53. The judgment also states that recoupment does not apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered payment of £6,138.53. The appendix shows a basic award of £249.93 and a compensatory award of £5,888.60 after 50% reductions for conduct. | Upheld | — | £6,139 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,139
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £250
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,889
- 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.