Case 6011686/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Punter v Liberium Independent Medical Education Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011686/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Punter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Punter succeeded on her redundancy payment claim and the tribunal ordered Liberium Independent Medical Education Limited to pay £2,100.00. She also succeeded on her unlawful deduction from wages claim, with the tribunal ordering £1,114.36 on a net basis.
The unfair dismissal claim was found well founded and the tribunal held that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. However, the tribunal recorded that no basic award or compensatory award was payable in relation to that finding.
The claimant's direct sex discrimination and direct pregnancy discrimination claims were dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Anderson sitting alone, with the respondent having no response or appearance.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the redundancy payment claim well founded and ordered payment of £2,100.00. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the unlawful deduction from wages claim well founded and ordered payment of £1,114.36 on a net basis. | Upheld | — | £1,114 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and that the claim succeeded, but stated that no basic award or compensatory award was payable. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claim for direct sex discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claim for direct pregnancy discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,214
- across all upheld claims
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.