Case 1400331/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Vincent v NMA performance T/A Crossfit Fareham — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400331/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Vincent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton on 20 November 2019, Employment Judge Rayner found that Mr S Vincent had been wrongfully dismissed by NMA Performance T/A Crossfit Fareham. The tribunal awarded £4,571.07 as compensation for breach of contract, broken down as £3,904.07 for three months' notice pay based on an average monthly take-home pay of £1,303.69, plus £300 for three months' gym membership at £100 per month and £360 for loss of free energy drinks over the same period.
The claimant's claim for accrued holiday pay during the notice period was dismissed. The judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that no further reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days. The judgment was sent to the parties on 10 December 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and awarded £4,571.07 as compensation for breach of contract, made up of £3,904.07 for three months' notice pay, £300 for three months' gym membership, and £360 for loss of free energy drinks. | Upheld | — | £4,571 |
| Holiday pay | The claim for accrued holiday pay during the notice period was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,571
- across all upheld claims
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.