Case 3300204/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Rees Phillips, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300204/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Rees Phillips, of counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed within the meaning of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the dismissal was unfair within the meaning of section 98 of that Act. The case was heard at Watford by CVP on 13 and 14 December 2021 and 14 to 16 February 2022 before Employment Judge Hyams sitting alone.
The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct in no way caused or contributed to her dismissal, and it was not just and equitable to reduce either the basic award under section 119 ERA 1996 or the compensatory award under section 123 ERA 1996. It awarded a basic award of £4,035 and a compensatory award of £42,427.84. The respondent was also ordered to pay £10,000 in total by way of a contribution towards the claimant's costs.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £56,463
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,035
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £42,428
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.