Case 1300291/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hayward v Press Metal (UK) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300291/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hayward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn the claimant’s application for reconsideration of the judgment dated 5 November 2021, Employment Judge Noons held that both parties agreed an incorrect figure had been used to calculate loss of earnings. The tribunal treated the claimant’s email as an application under Rule 71 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 and, applying Rules 70 and 72, decided that a hearing was unnecessary because the parties agreed there had been an error and that the judgment should be varied.
The tribunal varied only the compensatory award element of the original decision. It recalculated loss of earnings on the basis of 12 months at £2,500, giving £30,000, less actual earnings of £21,388.09, resulting in loss of earnings of £8,611.91. The award for loss of statutory rights remained £524.
No future loss was awarded because the parties agreed that, had the claimant not been dismissed, his employment would have ended fairly on 30 September 2021. The original decision was otherwise confirmed; on the extracted text, the adjudicated claim is unfair dismissal and the reconsideration judgment does not identify any separate liability finding beyond that.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reconsideration judgment varied only the compensatory award element of the original decision; the original decision was otherwise confirmed. The extracted text does not set out a separate basic award. | Upheld | — | £9,136 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,136
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £9,136
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.