Case 3327638/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Dr J Lawson v The Society of St Stephen’s House — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327638/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr J Lawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Dr Lawson's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing, so no written reasons were provided unless requested within 14 days. Employment Judge Moor heard the case at Watford on 21, 22 and 23 July 2021 and ordered the Respondent, The Society of St Stephen’s House, to pay £30,939. The Tribunal also recorded that recoupment does not apply.
The award calculation records gross pay of £564.69 per week and uses the statutory week’s pay limit of £525 for the basic award, producing £1,575. The compensatory award calculation includes loss of wages, loss of pension, removal and storage, and loss of statutory rights, with total loss before reduction calculated at £69,684.48. A 20% Polkey reduction was then applied, giving a compensatory award before cap of £55,747.58. The Tribunal did not gross up the award because the statutory cap applied, and fixed the compensatory award payable at £29,364, producing a total award of £30,939.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeds. The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay £30,939 and stated that recoupment does not apply. | Upheld | — | £30,939 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,939
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,575
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £29,364
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.