Case 3311330/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Step-Marsden (counsel) For the v Mr S Perkins (Ops Manager) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311330/2023
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Step-Marsden (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Watford before Employment Judge Alliott on 3 and 4 June 2024, found that the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal was well founded. The respondent was ordered to pay a total sum of £17,824.08, comprising a basic award of £1,286.00, loss of earnings of £12,163.46, an employer's pension contribution of £567.00, loss of statutory rights of £500.00, and a 25% Acas uplift of £3,307.62 applied to the loss of earnings, pension and statutory rights components.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £1,049.98, subject to tax and National Insurance.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided in this record and would only be issued on request within 14 days. The summary above is therefore limited to the matters recorded on the face of the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Award comprises basic award £1,286.00, loss of earnings £12,163.46, employer's pension contribution £567.00, loss of statutory rights £500.00, and 25% Acas uplift on items 1.2-1.4 of £3,307.62. | Upheld | — | £17,824 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Gross sum of £1,049.98 ordered (subject to tax and NI). | Upheld | — | £1,050 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,824
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,286
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £13,230
- 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.