Case 6003616/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. M Evans v ABC Studio Childcare Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003616/2024
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. M Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cawthray, sitting alone at London South by video on 12 and 13 March 2025, found the Claimant's claim of unfair dismissal against ABC Studio Childcare Limited to be well-founded. The Respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £2,980.76 and a compensatory award of £8,332.55, the compensatory award including a 25% ACAS uplift.
The Tribunal also ordered the Respondent to pay £500.00 in relation to loss of statutory rights. The Claimant's separate claim for wrongful dismissal was likewise well-founded, with an award of £1,633.92.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested. The written record does not set out the underlying factual findings or legal analysis in detail.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £2,980.76 and compensatory award of £8,332.55 (including ACAS uplift of 25%). | Upheld | — | £11,813 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,634 |
| Other | Award for loss of statutory rights, ordered alongside the unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,447
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,981
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,333
- 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.