Case 3308889/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Naylor v East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308889/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Naylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms J Naylor, brought claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against East Suffolk & North Essex NHS Foundation Trust. The matter was heard at Norwich on 16 and 17 October 2025 before Employment Judge Warren, with both parties represented by counsel. The respondent conceded liability in respect of the unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a Basic Award of £21,000 and a Compensatory Award of £58,855.24, the statutory cap having been applied. The respondent was further ordered to pay £1,076.92 in damages for wrongful dismissal, bringing the total payable under the judgment to £80,932.16. The recoupment provisions were stated not to apply.
Written reasons were not provided, as reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons is recorded within this document.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Respondent conceded liability. Basic Award £21,000 plus Compensatory Award £58,855.24 (statutory cap applied). | Upheld | — | £79,855 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages for wrongful dismissal awarded in the sum of £1,076.92. | Upheld | — | £1,077 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £80,932
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £21,000
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £58,855
- 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.