Case 3323446/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Tanya Hill v Lil Packaging Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323446/2021
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Tanya Hill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs Tanya Hill was unfairly dismissed by Lil Packaging Ltd. The judgment records the finding in a single substantive sentence and does not set out further reasons in the extracted text beyond the conclusion that the dismissal was unfair.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a total of £5,174.80. This comprised a basic award of £3,605, lost earnings of £1,135.80 net, lost pension contributions of £34 net, and £400 for loss of statutory rights. The judgment also states that the claimant received no relevant benefits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a total of £5,174.80. The award comprised a basic award of £3,605, lost earnings of £1,135.80 net, lost pension contributions of £34 net, and £400 for loss of statutory rights. The judgment states that the claimant received no relevant benefits. | Upheld | — | £5,175 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,175
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,605
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,570
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.