Case 1302403/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For v Mr S Hobbs (Transport Manager) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1302403/2019
- Decision date
- 27 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Birmingham on 27 February 2020 before Employment Judge Gaskell, held that the claimant was fairly dismissed by the respondent, Rothley Limited. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore not well founded and was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed in breach of his employment contract. It awarded damages for 5 weeks' unpaid notice in the net sum of £1,337.45, payable by the respondent. The written record notes that the award was calculated net of income tax and national insurance contributions, on the basis that the respondent would make the corresponding payment to HMRC when paying the claimant.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed and held the unfair dismissal claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed in breach of his employment contract and awarded damages for 5 weeks' unpaid notice in the net sum of £1,337.45. | Upheld | — | £1,337 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,337
- across all upheld claims
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.