Case 3303716/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Chose Not to Attend — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303716/2019
- Decision date
- 21 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dobbie
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Ms L Page's claim for unfair dismissal against Adara Healthcare Limited. Employment Judge Dobbie, sitting alone at Cambridge on 6 November 2023, recorded that the respondent did not attend. No other claims are identified in the judgment excerpt.
The tribunal awarded total compensation of £962.79, comprising a basic award of £742.50 and a compensatory award of £220.29. It found that the claimant contributed to her own dismissal, and reduced both the basic award and the compensatory award by 75% on that basis under ss.123(6) and 122(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On remedy, the tribunal also applied the rule in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd. It found that the claimant would have been dismissed fairly on or around two weeks after the effective date of termination in any event, so loss of income was limited to that period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim and awarded £962.79 in total compensation, made up of a £742.50 basic award and a £220.29 compensatory award. Both elements were reduced by 75% because the claimant contributed to her own dismissal under ss.123(6) and 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £963 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £963
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £743
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £220
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.122(2) 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.