Case 1302993/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Jones v ICAM Automation Solutions Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302993/2022
- Decision date
- 6 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Kelly at Midlands West on 5 and 6 January 2023, found that Mr J Jones was unfairly dismissed by ICAM Automation Solutions Ltd. It also found that the respondent breached the contract of employment by failing to pay the claimant full pay for his notice period ending employment.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for a statutory redundancy payment. The judgment does not set out any separate reasoning in the extracted text for that dismissal beyond recording the result.
By way of remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £2,720.00 as compensation for unfair dismissal and £2,006.40 as damages for breach of contract. No separate breakdown was given for the unfair dismissal award, and no other remedy components were recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered £2,720.00 as compensation for unfair dismissal. The judgment does not split this figure into basic and compensatory awards. | Upheld | — | £2,720 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the contract of employment by failing to pay full notice pay and ordered £2,006.40 as damages. | Upheld | — | £2,006 |
| Redundancy | The claimant's statutory redundancy payment claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,726
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,720
- 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.