Case 1302156/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McGrath, counsel v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302156/2022
- Decision date
- 6 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robin Broughton
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A McGrath, counsel
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the second claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal following settlement. No substantive findings are set out for those claims beyond that procedural disposal.
For the first claimant, the breach of contract claim was conceded during the hearing. By consent, the tribunal awarded £5,138.70 net on that claim.
The first claimant's unfair dismissal claim was also conceded later in the hearing. The tribunal recorded agreed figures of a basic award of £5,984.00 and a compensatory award of £5,000.00, making a total due to the claimant of £16,122.70 when the breach of contract award is included.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The second claimant's claims were dismissed on withdrawal following settlement. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The first claimant's breach of contract claim was conceded during the hearing and, by consent, he was awarded £5,138.70 net. | Upheld | — | £5,139 |
| Unfair dismissal | The first claimant's unfair dismissal claim was conceded later in the hearing and he was awarded a basic award of £5,984.00 and a compensatory award of £5,000.00. | Upheld | — | £10,984 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,123
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,984
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,000
- 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.