Case 6009349/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Taylor v Gursirat Supermarket Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009349/2024
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dawson, sitting alone at Southampton on 17 November 2025, gave judgment in favour of the claimant on all four heads of claim. The tribunal found that the respondent had unfairly dismissed the claimant and ordered a basic award of £2,412. The tribunal further found that the respondent had discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of age and awarded £1,200 in respect of injury to feelings.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £858 (net), and that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement, ordering payment of £540 (net). The judgment records that the recoupment provisions do not apply.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided with this record. The written judgment is brief and does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning or any legal tests by name.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award ordered; no compensatory award figure recorded in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,412 |
| Age discrimination | Compensation of £1200 awarded in respect of injury to feelings. | Upheld | Age | £1,200 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice; £858 (net) ordered. | Upheld | — | £858 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday entitlement; £540 (net) ordered. Listed by gov.uk under Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £540 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,010
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,412
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.