Case 1306456/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Kimberley v HTC Solutions Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1306456/2023
- Decision date
- 19 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Kimberley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 to be well-founded and held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £19,290 and a compensatory award of £42,205.55.
The tribunal also found the breach of contract complaint for notice pay to be well-founded, but made no separate damages award because those losses were included in the compensatory award for unfair dismissal. The unpaid holiday pay complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and orders a basic award and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £61,496 |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract complaint for notice pay was well-founded, but no damages were awarded because the losses were included in the unfair dismissal compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Holiday pay | The complaint of unpaid holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £61,496
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £19,290
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £42,206
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Part X Employment Rights Act 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.