Case 1309244/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For v Gary Pearce Landscapes Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1309244/2019
- Decision date
- 26 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gaskell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Birmingham on 26 August 2020, Employment Judge Gaskell held under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant's claim had been presented in time. The tribunal then found that Mrs S Martin was unfairly dismissed by Gary Pearce Landscapes Limited on 31 July 2019.
The tribunal also found the claimant's claim for unpaid notice pay to be well-founded. The written record states that compensation was awarded in the overall sum of £4,992.18 and records a basic award of £1,493.31, a 25% uplift under section 207A TULRCA 1992 of £373.33, an award under section 38 EA 2002 of £663.69, and unpaid notice pay of £995.54 net.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 31 July 2019. The written record states that compensation was awarded in an overall sum of £4,992.18 and lists a basic award, a section 207A uplift and an award under section 38 EA 2002, but the extracted text does not separately itemise a compensatory award figure for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant's claim for unpaid notice pay was well-founded. The written record lists unpaid notice pay of £995.54 net as one component of the overall award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,992
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,493
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
- s.38 EA 2002
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.