Case 3220646/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms C Dozzell v TCHC Group Limited — 2021

Case reference: 3220646/2020
Decision date: 3 September 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge John Crosfill

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms C Dozzell

Respondent

TCHC Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms C Dozzell's claim for unfair dismissal against TCHC Group Limited was heard at East London Hearing Centre via the Cloud Video Platform on 17 June and 3 September 2021 before Employment Judge John Crosfill. The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded.

The tribunal made a basic award of £4,035 under section 119 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and a compensatory award of £13,195.38 under section 123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The compensatory award was made up of past loss of earnings from the dismissal on 18 September 2020 to the hearing date of £24,488, less £12,772.14 received from alternative employment, leaving £11,715.86, plus future loss of earnings of £979.52 for two weeks' net pay, and £500 for loss of statutory rights.

The tribunal recorded that the calculation of the awards was by consent of the parties. It also recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied. The total monetary award was £17,230.38, with a prescribed element of £11,715.86 for the period 18 September 2020 to 3 September 2021 and an excess of £5,514.52.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal said the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well founded. The monetary calculation was by consent of the parties.	Upheld	—	£17,230

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £17,230; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £4,035; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £13,195; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

3 references

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.