Case 3303490/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Reeta Kapoor v Dostiyo-Asian Women and Girls Organisation — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303490/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Reeta Kapoor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim. It upheld the unfair dismissal claim and found that Mrs Reeta Kapoor had been unfairly dismissed by Dostiyo-Asian Women and Girls Organisation.
Although the unfair dismissal claim succeeded, the tribunal made no compensation award. It recorded that the claimant's compensatory award and basic award were each reduced by 100% under ss. 123(1), 122(2) and/or 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with the result that no compensation was payable.
Both parties' applications for costs orders were dismissed. The tribunal sat alone before Employment Judge Michell at Bury St Edmunds on 16 and 17 December 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but awarded no compensation because the claimant's compensatory award and basic award were each reduced by 100% pursuant to ss. 123(1), 122(2) and/or 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ss. 123(1), 122(2) and/or 123(6) 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.
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.