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
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment 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 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Upheld | — | £925 |
| Breach of contract | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Working time regulations | Upheld | — | £6,204 |
| Other | Upheld | — | £925 |
| Other | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,054
- Basic award
- £925
- Compensatory award
- £0
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.