Case 1306282/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v HUGO BOSS UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306282/2019
- Decision date
- 30 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S Edwards, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Hugo Boss UK Limited. The respondent did not enter a response, attend, or engage with the tribunal process. After hearing evidence from the claimant, Employment Judge Broughton found that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The judgment records that the claimant was dismissed on 24 June 2019 and had gross annual earnings of £30,000. The tribunal accepted that he had 8 years' deemed service by arrangement following a break and that he received 8 weeks' notice pay. It also recorded that he found alternative employment after 9 weeks, but had ongoing losses of basic pay and pension of £275 per month likely to continue for a further 6 months. The tribunal further recorded losses relating to monthly commission until the start of lockdown and a bonus at the end of 2019.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,200, calculated as 8 x £525. The compensatory award was £7,520, made up of £500 for one week's net pay, £1,800 for lost commission, £720 for lost bonus, £4,000 for lost basic pay, and £500 for loss of statutory rights. The total payable to the claimant was £11,720.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that the claimant's claim of unfair dismissal succeeded. The award was set out in separate basic and compensatory components, totalling £11,720. | Upheld | — | £11,720 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,720
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,200
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,520
- 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.