Case 3311175/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Gray v Coronet Flowers Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311175/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCooey Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedMiss A Gray
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 22 default judgment heard by Employment Judge McCooey via CVP after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time and did not attend. The complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £9,487.50, a compensatory award of £6,247.38 net (calculated over 20.5 weeks: 8.5 weeks salary plus 3 months' notice) plus £500 loss of statutory rights, increased by 20% (£1,349.48) under s.207A TULR(C)A 1992 for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 (compensatory total with uplift £8,096.86). An award of £1,725 (4 weeks' gross pay) under s.38 Employment Act 2002 was made for breach of the duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
The complaints of unauthorised deduction from wages (£836.62 gross for 1-11 June 2024) and holiday pay (£133.69 for 41.5 accrued hours) were both well-founded. The breach of contract complaint relating to notice pay was dismissed on withdrawal. The total award is £20,279.67, payable within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £18,084 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £1,725 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld | — | £837 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £134 |
| Breach of contract | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,280
- Basic award
- £9,488
- Compensatory award
- £8,097
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.