Case 1300024/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Nalewajko v Harvey & Brockless Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300024/2020
- Decision date
- 1 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Nalewajko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Cookson sitting alone at Birmingham found that Mr R Nalewajko was unfairly dismissed contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment record is brief and records that reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written decision does not set out the underlying reasoning in detail.
The tribunal also found that Harvey & Brockless Limited breached the claimant's contract of employment when it terminated his employment without notice. The decision states that the claimant was entitled to 3 weeks' notice of termination, and that the breach claim succeeded on that basis.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded damages of £976.71 for breach of contract. In respect of unfair dismissal, it awarded a basic award of £1,159.26 and a compensatory award of £1,141.14. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment is £3,277.11.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons in full. | Upheld | — | £2,300 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant's contract by terminating his employment without notice. The judgment states the claimant was entitled to 3 weeks' notice of termination. | Upheld | — | £977 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,277
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,159
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,141
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.94 ERA 1996
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.