Case 6002245/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Pryke v Dentaprime UK plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002245/2025
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Carpenter Representation
Parties
2 namedMiss G Pryke
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought complaints of unpaid holiday pay, unpaid redundancy pay, and unfair dismissal against the Respondent. The hearing was held by CVP at the East London Hearing Centre on 12 and 13 June 2025 before Employment Judge M Carpenter sitting alone, with the Claimant unrepresented and Mr Y Petrov for the Respondent.
All three complaints were well-founded. The Tribunal awarded £74.25 for unpaid holiday pay, £1,042.31 for unpaid redundancy pay, and a compensatory award of £2,311.85 for unfair dismissal (with no basic award payable). The total sum payable was £3,428.41.
Following oral judgment, the Respondent applied for £2,500 in costs under Rule 73 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, on the basis that the Claimant had rejected a settlement offer of around £7,000 prior to the hearing and had therefore acted unreasonably under Rule 74(2)(a). The application was refused. The Tribunal held that costs awards are the exception, that the Claimant had presented her case clearly, calmly and professionally as a litigant in person, and that her decision to reject the settlement offer was not demonstrably unreasonable but rather reflected the normal risks of litigation.
Claims and outcomes
6 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £74 |
| Redundancy | Upheld | — | £1,042 |
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £2,312 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld | — | £74 |
| Redundancy | Upheld | — | £1,042 |
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £2,312 |
Legal tests applied
3 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,428
- Compensatory award
- £2,312
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.