Case 1305581/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bailey v Americold Whitchurch Limited Heard by video — 2026
- Case reference
- 1305581/2024
- Decision date
- 22 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bailey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis is the remedy judgment following an earlier liability determination of unfair dismissal. The Employment Judge ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £5,487.33 in compensation.
The basic award was calculated as 7.5 weeks at £518.04 per week (£3,885.30), reduced by 10% for contributory fault under s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 (deduction of £388.53), giving £3,496.53.
The compensatory award was £1,990.80, comprising a prescribed element of £1,540.80 (4 weeks at £428.00 per week from 13 April 2024 to 10 May 2024, less 10% contributory fault under s.123(6) ERA) and a non-prescribed element for loss of statutory rights of £450 (£500 less 10% s.123(6) reduction). The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply to the prescribed element. Reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy judgment only. Basic award £3,496.53 (7.5 weeks x £518.04 less 10% contributory fault under s.122(2) ERA); compensatory award £1,990.80 (prescribed element £1,540.80 for 4 weeks @ £428/wk less 10% s.123(6) ERA, plus £450 loss of statutory rights less 10% s.123(6) ERA). Recoupment Regulations apply. | Upheld | — | £5,487 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,487
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,497
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,991
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(6) 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.