Case 3202224/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Lovett v Mr Cosmetics Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202224/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Lovett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms D Lovett’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and that she was unfairly dismissed. It also found that the Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, so the compensatory award was increased by 10% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal further found that the Claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct. On that basis, it reduced the compensatory award by 20% and reduced the basic award by 20% because of the Claimant’s conduct before dismissal. The judgment recorded a basic award of £3,105 and a compensatory award of £2,853.66 after those adjustments.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded. It also found the Claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, leading to a 20% reduction of the compensatory award, and reduced the basic award by 20% for the Claimant's conduct before dismissal. | Upheld | — | £5,959 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,959
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,105
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,854
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s.207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.