Case 3323630/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr S Parmar (in-house solicitor) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3323630/2019
- Decision date
- 7 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed on 11 October 2016 and dismissed with effect from 28 August 2019, giving her two full years of service. The respondent decided not to contest liability, and the tribunal therefore found the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal well founded.
For remedy, the tribunal noted that the claimant was born on 17 August 1970 and that her two full years of service were after she was over 41. She worked two days a week, 17.5 hours per week at £8.37 per hour, giving a week’s pay of £146.48. The basic award was calculated at 2 years x 1.5 x £146.48, producing £439.44.
The tribunal found no loss of earnings because the claimant obtained another job on 5 September 2019, the following week, at more hours and a higher hourly rate. The compensatory award for loss of earnings was therefore £0. The tribunal also awarded £200 for loss of statutory rights, saying it would award £500 to a claimant working five days a week, but £200 was appropriate given that this claimant worked two days per week. The total award was £639.44.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent did not contest liability. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded and awarded compensation in the total sum of £639.44. | Upheld | — | £639 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £639
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £439
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- 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.