Case 6017118/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Ms D Jakus-Szampor v Lee-Anne Plumb R1 Alexanderplumb Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) R2 — 2025

Case reference: 6017118/2024
Decision date: 2 December 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Quill
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms D Jakus-Szampor

Respondent

Lee-Anne Plumb R1 Alexanderplumb Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) R2

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Quill, sitting alone in person at Watford, gave judgment in a claim against two respondents. The tribunal held that there was no contract between R1 (Lee-Anne Plumb personally) and the claimant, so all claims against R1 were dismissed. R2 (Alexanderplumb Ltd, in creditors' voluntary liquidation, no representation) had a contract of employment with the claimant.

R2 was found to have constructively dismissed the claimant within s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 (effective date 1 November 2024), to have dismissed her in breach of contract by failing to give 4 weeks' notice, to have breached Regs 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 by failing to provide any paid leave during the entire 4.7918 years of employment, and to have failed to provide a statement of initial employment particulars.

The tribunal awarded a basic award of £924.80 (4 weeks at £231.20 gross weekly pay), nil compensatory and nil contract damages (losses assessed as zero), £6,204.04 for breach of WTR (4.7918 x 5.6 x £231.20), and £924.80 (the higher 4 weeks' amount) under s.38 Employment Act 2002 — total £8,053.64. No s.207A ACAS uplift or reduction was applied. R1's application for a preparation time order was refused.

Claims and outcomes

5 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	Constructive unfair dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 against R2 (Alexanderplumb Ltd, in CVL). Basic award only (4 weeks x £231.20). Compensatory award assessed as zero loss.	Upheld	—	£925
Breach of contract	Wrongful dismissal (4 weeks' notice owed) but losses assessed as zero.	Upheld	—	£0
Working time regulations	Breach of WTR Regs 13 and 13A: no paid leave provided during entire 4.7918 years of employment. Compensation = 4.7918 x 5.6 weeks x £231.20.	Upheld	—	£6,204
Other	s.38 Employment Act 2002 higher amount (4 weeks' pay) for failure to supply statement of initial employment particulars.	Upheld	—	£925
Other	All claims against R1 (Lee-Anne Plumb personally) dismissed - no contract of employment between R1 and claimant.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £8,054; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £925; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £0; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.