Case 3306458/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Alican v Medsun Foods Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306458/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y Alican
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the reserved judgment referred to in this remedy decision, the Tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. At the remedy hearing on 8 March 2024, the Tribunal noted that the Claimant had, by email through Mr Gorlov, made it clear that she did not want an order under section 113 ERA 1996.
The Tribunal then applied section 112(4) ERA 1996 and recorded that paragraph 6 of the reserved judgment had already provided for a 100% reduction to both the basic award and the compensatory award that would otherwise have been made. On that basis, no sum was ordered to be paid to the Claimant in respect of the unfair dismissal decision.
The Tribunal also made clear that this remedy judgment did not affect paragraph 7.4 of the reserved judgment. That paragraph ordered the Respondent to pay £6,000 to Mrs Alican, and the Tribunal confirmed that this was an award for breach of contract, not unfair dismissal. No costs decision was made in this judgment, as the Respondent reserved its position on costs.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal had already found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded in the reserved judgment. At the remedy hearing, the Claimant said she did not want an order under section 113 ERA 1996, and the Tribunal recorded 100% reductions to the basic and compensatory awards, so no sum was payable for the unfair dismissal finding. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Breach of contract | The remedy judgment states that paragraph 7.4 of the reserved judgment ordered the Respondent to pay £6,000 to the Claimant, and expressly says that sum was for breach of contract, not unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,000
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.112(2) ERA 1996
- s.112(4) ERA 1996
- s.113 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.