Case 6001200/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kimberley Wright v Kumsal Kebab Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001200/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kimberley Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent failed to attend the hearing on 10 December 2024, did not submit a witness statement or documents, and did not attend after being contacted by Tribunal staff on the morning of the hearing. In those circumstances, the Tribunal struck out the response pursuant to Rule 47.
The claimant, Miss Kimberley Wright, succeeded in her claim for unfair dismissal. The judgment records that the claim was well founded and that the respondent was ordered to pay a total of £11,175.84.
The schedule to the judgment shows a basic award of £343.20, a compensatory award made up of £3,054.00 for 11 November 2023 to 31 March 2024 and £6,520.80 for 1 April 2024 to 10 December 2024, plus a 10% ACAS uplift of £957.48. The schedule also included £300.00 for loss of statutory protection.
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with the ACAS code of conduct and applied a 10% uplift, taking account of the respondent's default and its size and resources. The recoupment provisions did not apply because the claimant's receipt of universal credit persisted at a consistent value both before and after the dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent did not attend the hearing, submit a witness statement, or provide documents. The response was struck out under Rule 47, and the unfair dismissal claim was found well founded. | Upheld | — | £11,176 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,176
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £343
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,575
- 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.