Case 1303125/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kieran Pearson v Foundry Machinery & Spares Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1303125/2025
- Decision date
- 5 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Close REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kieran Pearson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought complaints of breach of contract and unfair dismissal. The hearing was held by CVP at the Midlands West Employment Tribunal on 5 March 2026 before Employment Judge A Close sitting alone, with the Claimant for himself and the Respondent not in attendance.
The complaint of breach of contract was dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. The complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and upheld.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a basic award of £686.40 and a compensatory award of £5,350, totalling £6,036.40. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply, with the prescribed element being £5,350 covering the period 3 April 2025 to 4 June 2025; the difference is £686.40.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded. Basic award £686.40, compensatory award £5,350. Recoupment applies: prescribed element £5,350 covering 3 April 2025 to 4 June 2025; difference £686.40. | Upheld | — | £6,036 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,036
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £686
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,350
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.