Case 3302781/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Wegner v No 1 Ship Street Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302781/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Welch
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Wegner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing in Bury St Edmunds on 20 and 21 January 2022, before Employment Judge K Welch sitting alone, the tribunal held that the Claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim succeeded and that her holiday pay claim also succeeded. The judgment does not set out written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The Claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay did not proceed to a substantive dismissal finding: the judgment records that it was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. No discrimination claim or other separate remedy head is recorded in the decision.
The Respondent was ordered to pay a total of £4,032.50. This comprised a compensatory award of £3,926.60 for the unfair dismissal claim and holiday pay of £106. The compensatory award was made up of £2,741.20 for loss of earnings from 8 December 2019 to 27 February 2020, £400 for loss of statutory rights, and £785.30 as an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS code of practice.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes this as an automatic unfair dismissal claim and records that it succeeded. | Upheld | — | £3,927 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £106 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay; the judgment states it was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,033
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,927
- 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.