Case 4101075/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Whitelaw v Pixie Group Ltd t/a Jollytots & Co — 2025
- Case reference
- 4101075/2025
- Decision date
- 5 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Whitelaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNotice of the claim was sent to the respondent on 5 June 2025, with a response due by 3 July 2025. No response was received and no extension was sought. On the material available, including further information from the claimant, the Employment Judge decided the claim could be determined and found that Ms A Whitelaw had been unfairly dismissed by Pixie Group Ltd t/a Jollytots & Co.
The remedy was assessed by reference to the claimant's age at dismissal, 39, her length of service of 3 years, and a weekly wage of £183.04. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £549.12, calculated as 3 weeks' pay, and compensatory compensation of £2,147.36. The compensatory award comprised £1,647.36 for loss of wages and £500 for loss of statutory rights.
The tribunal also applied an ACAS uplift of 25% to the compensatory award, amounting to £536.84. The total award recorded in the judgment was £3,233.32.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £549.12, compensatory compensation of £2,147.36, and an ACAS uplift of £536.84; the total monetary award was £3,233.32. | Upheld | — | £3,233 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,233
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £549
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,147
- 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.