Case 3328061/2017 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Hampstead Gymnastics Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3328061/2017
- Decision date
- 5 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 16 May 2019, Employment Judge Alliott heard the case between Miss Lisa-Marie O’Brien and Hampstead Gymnastics Limited, with both parties appearing in person. The tribunal held that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was well founded and ordered the respondent to pay a basic award of £270.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant’s breach of contract claim. In a later reconsideration issued under Rule 70, EJ Alliott recorded that he had overlooked the claimant’s entitlement to a basic award for unfair dismissal, even though he had found that she would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been followed.
The reconsideration set out the basic award calculation. The claimant’s date of birth was recorded as 24 August 1973, her continuous employment as 3 years, and because she was not below age 41 in each year of employment she was entitled to 1.5 weeks’ pay for each year. On that basis, 4.5 weeks at £60 per week produced the £270 award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded and, on reconsideration, recorded that the claimant was entitled to a basic award despite the finding that she would have been dismissed in any event had a fair procedure been adopted. | Upheld | — | £270 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £270
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £270
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.