Case 1304683/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mr. Tidy, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304683/2021
- Decision date
- 23 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Members
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms. M Stewart M.B.E., Mr. N. Forward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Birmingham via CVP heard the case on 22 and 23 September 2022 before Employment Judge Wedderspoon, sitting with Ms. M Stewart M.B.E. and Mr. N. Forward. It found that the claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was a disabled person at all material times, but the claim of discrimination arising from disability was not well founded and was dismissed. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The claimant was awarded £7,448.96 in total. That sum comprised a basic award of £2,880, loss of statutory rights of £500, notice pay of £1,920 gross, and loss of earnings of £2,148.96 gross.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment describes this as a claim of discrimination arising from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,449
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,880
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,569
- 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.