Case 3303607/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Pathmaraja v Sir Toby’s Beers Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303607/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Magee Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Pathmaraja
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Miss P Pathmaraja’s claims for wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal were both well founded and succeeded. The case was heard at Norwich Employment Tribunal on 21 and 22 October 2024 before Employment Judge M Magee, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by its director, Mr T Westgarth.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £10,529.27 in total. That sum comprised £420.27 for wrongful dismissal, a £1,413.45 basic award for unfair dismissal, and a £8,695.55 compensatory award for unfair dismissal. The written record also states that the recoupment provisions apply, with a prescribed element of £6,437.23 covering the period from 9 February 2024 to 22 October 2024, and an excess over the prescribed element of £4,092.04.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £420 |
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £10,109 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,529
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,413
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,696
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.