Case 1304267/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Grey v Telent Technology Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1304267/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Wright REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Grey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Birmingham by CVP before Employment Judge K Wright on 27 and 28 February 2025, found the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal to be well-founded and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by Telent Technology Services Limited.
The Tribunal assessed that there was a 60% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. The respondent was ordered to pay a compensatory award of £5,126.57, stated to be the actual sum payable after any deductions or uplifts have been applied.
The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were applied: the total monetary award for unfair dismissal is £5,126.57, the prescribed element is £4,926.57 (covering the period 16 February 2024 to 27 February 2025), and the difference between the total award and the prescribed element is £200. Reasons were given orally; written reasons will only follow on request.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found a 60% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event; compensatory award stated as the actual sum payable after deductions/uplifts. | Upheld | — | £5,127 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,127
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,127
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.