Case 6002735/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Benabdeslam v Pocock Law Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002735/2025
- Decision date
- 12 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Benabdeslam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the Claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service. It also dismissed the holiday pay claim and the unauthorised deduction from wages claim, each on the basis that the claim was not well-founded.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the Claimant without the full period of one week's notice. It ordered damages of GBP 96.15, noting that the Respondent had already inadvertently paid four fifths of the Claimant's notice pay entitlement. The Tribunal also ordered additional compensation of GBP 961.50 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the holiday pay claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the unauthorised deduction from wages claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Respondent was found to have dismissed the Claimant without the full period of one week's notice. | Upheld | — | £96 |
| Other | Additional compensation awarded under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £962 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,058
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.