Case 1400455/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Franklin (Counsel) For the v Mr and Mrs Vivian (in person) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400455/2019
- Decision date
- 16 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Franklin (Counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr D Quenault was unfairly dismissed by CJ Commercial Equipment Maintenance Company Ltd. The hearing took place at Southampton on 16 December 2019 before Employment Judge Rayner. The judgment was later amended to correct the description of the sums awarded as the basic award and the compensatory award.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £20,950.70. This comprised a basic award of £9,519.30 and a compensatory award made up of loss of earnings from 31 October 2018 to 30 October 2019 (£9,916.54), a 10% uplift for failure to follow ACAS procedures under section 207A TULCRA 1992 (£991.65), loss of statutory rights (£350.00), and loss of pension contribution (£173.21).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £20,951 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,951
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £9,519
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,431
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.207A TULCRA 1992
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.