Case 1300518/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D.Renton - Counsel For the v Stan Smith And Sons Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300518/2021
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mr P. Talbot, Ms D. Hill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D.Renton - Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Birmingham via CVP on 12 and 13 September 2022, the tribunal refused the respondent's application to admit Daniel Jackson's witness statement as hearsay evidence and struck out the response under rule 37(1)(b) and (e). It then recorded that Mr R Cartwright had been unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £14,575 and a compensatory award of £21,815, made up of £20,700 for loss of income, £615 for pension loss and £500 for loss of statutory rights. It also recorded that Mr Cartwright was entitled to a redundancy payment of £14,575 and notice pay of £4,968, each set off against the compensatory award. The recoupment statement recorded a monetary award of £36,390, a prescribed element of £20,700 covering 14 October 2020 to 4 October 2021, and an excess of £15,690.
The remaining discrimination claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The claimant's application for costs was refused.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's response was struck out under rule 37(1)(b) and (e). The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £36,390 |
| Age discrimination | The remaining discrimination claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £36,390
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £14,575
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £21,815
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(b) and (e)
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.