Case 1307819/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McDonald v CMS Site Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1307819/2022
- Decision date
- 8 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McDonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A McDonald’s claim for unfair dismissal against CMS Site Services Ltd succeeded. The hearing took place at Birmingham Employment Tribunal by CVP on 8 September 2023 before Employment Judge Boyle, and the respondent did not attend. The written judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal awarded compensation for unfair dismissal of £11,169. The judgment itemises a basic award of £5,139 and compensatory elements of £4,320 for loss of earnings, £1,300 for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, and £500 for loss of statutory rights. The written record also states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and awarded compensation. The written record states a total of £11,169, with a basic award of £5,139 and compensatory items of £4,320 for loss of earnings, £1,300 for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal, and £500 for loss of statutory rights; those itemised figures do not add up to the stated total. | Upheld | — | £11,169 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,169
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,139
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,120
- 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.