Case 6009011/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Beresford v Sunflower Spalding Cash and Carry Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009011/2025
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Beresford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkinson, sitting alone by video on 25 September 2025, heard the claimant in person. The respondent did not attend and indicated it would not attend or defend the case, though it did not concede that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The respondent filed no evidence in support of its response and therefore failed to prove a potentially fair reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. It awarded a basic award of £15,400 and a compensatory award of £15,987.05, comprising £500 for loss of statutory rights and £15,487.05 for loss of earnings.
The tribunal concluded that the respondent had significantly failed to follow Acas Code of Practice Number 1 and that it was just and equitable to uplift the compensatory award by 20%, producing an additional sum of £3,197.41 payable to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £15,400 plus compensatory award £15,987.05 (£500 loss of statutory rights + £15,487.05 loss of earnings). A 20% Acas uplift of £3,197.41 was applied to the compensatory award. Respondent did not attend and filed no evidence, so failed to prove a potentially fair reason for dismissal. | Upheld | — | £31,387 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £34,584
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £15,400
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £15,987
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Acas Code of Practice Number 1
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.