Case 6000435/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Thornton v Capital City College Group — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000435/2025
- Decision date
- 10 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Appearances
- Venue
- in public in person
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Thornton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkin, sitting alone in public over four hearing days in November 2025, found that Ms Thornton's claim of (constructive) unfair dismissal against Capital City College Group, brought under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal applied a 25% deduction to the basic award under section 122(2) ERA 1996 and a 25% deduction to the compensatory award under section 123(6) ERA 1996. An ACAS uplift of 25% was applied to the compensatory award only, pursuant to section 207A TULR(C)A 1992.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £11,364.56 in total, comprising a basic award of £7,668.68 reduced by 25% to £5,751.51, and a compensatory award of £5,987.25 to which the ACAS uplift of 25% was applied and then a 25% reduction applied, producing £5,613.05.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Claim framed as (constructive) unfair dismissal under sections 95 and 98 ERA 1996; the tribunal found it well founded and succeeding. | Upheld | — | £11,365 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,365
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,752
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,613
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
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.