Case 1305752/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Charles v Sunrise Records and Entertainment Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305752/2020
- Decision date
- 26 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Charles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr R Charles was unfairly dismissed by Sunrise Records & Entertainment Ltd contrary to section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant’s claim was well founded. It also records that, had the respondent followed a fair redundancy procedure, there was a 100% likelihood that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy on 3 February 2020.
On remedy, the tribunal said the claimant was entitled to a basic award of £5,250 under section 119 ERA 1996. That amount was reduced to nil under section 122(4)(b) because the claimant had received a redundancy payment of £5,250 on termination. The tribunal also declined to make a compensatory award under section 123 ERA 1996 because of its finding on the likelihood of a fair redundancy dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to section 94 ERA 1996. It found he would have been fairly dismissed for redundancy on 3 February 2020 had a fair redundancy procedure been followed. A basic award of £5,250 was reduced to nil under section 122(4)(b) ERA because the claimant had already received a redundancy payment of £5,250 on termination, and no compensatory award was made under section 123 ERA. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.119 ERA 1996
- s.122(4)(b) ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 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.