Case 3312894/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Amelia Radford v Sumo Sushi Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312894/2021
- Decision date
- 26 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Representation
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Amelia Radford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Amelia Radford succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Sumo Sushi Limited. Employment Judge Hutchings found that she had been unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £210, calculated using a 0.5 age multiplier because the claimant was under 22 years old, with two years' service and a weekly wage of £210 gross.
The compensatory award was £3,811.50. The tribunal assessed loss of earnings at £4,620 for 22 weeks from 6 April 2021 to 11 September 2021, then applied a 10% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures and a 25% reduction under Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd because it found there was a 25% chance the claimant would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed.
The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant had been dismissed without notice for gross misconduct. The tribunal also found a breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to provide written particulars of employment and awarded £630, being three weeks' pay, but made no award for the section 8 breach relating to itemised pay statements because no loss was shown.
The holiday pay claim was dismissed because, for the period claimed, the claimant was under the age of 16 years. A separate claim under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 was dismissed because it was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. Taken together, the monetary awards made in the judgment totalled £4,651.50.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded a basic award of £210 and a compensatory award of £3,811.50, the latter reflecting £4,620 loss of earnings for 22 weeks, a 10% ACAS uplift, and a 25% Polkey reduction. | Upheld | — | £4,022 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay was not well founded; the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to provide written particulars of employment and awarded £630, equivalent to three weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £630 |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to provide itemised pay statements, but made no award because the claimant suffered no loss. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed because, for the period claimed, the claimant was under the age of 16 years. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,652
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £210
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,812
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.