Case 1306961/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306961/2020
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Ms L Clark, Mr S Woodall
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 25 to 29 July 2022, before Employment Judge Broughton sitting with Ms L Clark and Mr S Woodall, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal claim and wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. It also recorded that the whistleblowing detriment claim succeeded in part. The judgment note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal awarded £6,158.92 for unfair dismissal, £7,000 for injury to feelings, and an ACAS Code uplift of 15% in the sum of £1,973.84. The total award recorded in the judgment was £15,132.76.
The record does not separate the monetary figures by each successful claim beyond the heads listed above. No discrimination claims were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records that the wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the whistleblowing detriment claim succeeded in part. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal claim succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,133
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £6,159
- 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.