Case 3331478/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331478/2018
- Decision date
- 30 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jack Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing at Watford on 30 August 2019, Employment Judge Jack recorded judgment that Miss D Foulis was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by Harjot Singh. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The written record does not set out detailed reasons, stating that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated period.
The claimant was awarded £15,176 in total. The award comprised a basic award of £1,736, a compensatory award of £11,648, notice monies of £1,344, and holiday pay of £448. No interest or injury to feelings award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal remedy is treated as the basic award plus compensatory award recorded in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £13,384 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and separately records notice monies of £1,344. | Upheld | — | £1,344 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records Holiday Pay of £448 as part of the award. | Upheld | — | £448 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,176
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,736
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,648
- 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.