Case 6005253/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Olena Usata v MC Sims Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6005253/2026
- Decision date
- 26 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grubb REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Employment Tribunal at Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Olena Usata
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found Olena Usata's claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well founded. It therefore found that she had been unfairly dismissed by MC Sims Limited. The judgment records the outcome without written reasons.
MC Sims Limited was ordered to pay £2,673.80 by 4pm on 10 July 2026. This comprised a £267.40 basic award, an £802 compensatory award representing three weeks' loss of earnings, £1,337 compensation for failure to provide written particulars, and £267.40 notice pay under s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amount comprises the £267.40 basic award, £802 compensatory award and £1,337 compensation for failure to provide written particulars. | Upheld | — | £2,406 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded under s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £267 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,674
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £267
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £802
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.