Case 3301922/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Prism Electronics Ltd (In Administration) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301922/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remedy hearing in Cambridge on 10 November 2025 before Employment Judge Tynan, the tribunal recorded that Claire George had been unfairly dismissed by Prism Electronics Limited (in Administration). The respondent did not attend and was not represented.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £9,639.00 and a compensatory award of £29,507.92. It found that the claimant's actual losses were £30,835.66, but the compensatory award was limited to £29,507.92 under section 124(1ZA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The total award recorded was £39,146.92.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £9,639.00 and a compensatory award of £29,507.92. The claimant's actual losses were assessed at £30,835.66, but the compensatory award was capped at £29,507.92 under section 124(1ZA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £39,147 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £39,147
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,639
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £29,508
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 124(1ZA) Employment Rights Act 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.