Case 1303524/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hancock v LMJ Carpentry Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303524/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hancock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham by CVP on 31 July 2023, Employment Judge Hindmarch found that Mr A Hancock was an employee of LMJ Carpentry Limited. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
The tribunal upheld the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under s104(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded compensation of £1,920.88. It also upheld the claims for unlawful deductions from wages and holiday pay, awarding £413.52 and £192.40 respectively.
The tribunal further awarded a 4-week uplift under s38 Employment Act 2002 in the sum of £769.60. The complaint of direct age discrimination was also well founded, with £5,000 awarded for injury to feelings and £413.15 awarded as interest. The total sum awarded was £8,709.55.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under s104(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,921 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £414 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £192 |
| Other | 4-week uplift awarded under s38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £770 |
| Age discrimination | Interest was awarded separately in the sum of £413.15. | Upheld | Age | £5,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,710
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,921
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s104(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s38 Employment Act 2002
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.