Case 1400474/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss S Bellucci (2) Mr Robin Clarke v Mr Robert Perkins PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400474/2021
- Decision date
- 18 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss S Bellucci (2) Mr Robin Clarke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard at Bristol by video on 18 and 19 October 2021 before Employment Judge Midgley, this preliminary hearing concerned joined claims by Miss S Bellucci and Mr Robin Clarke against Mr Robert Perkins, who did not attend. The tribunal held that both claimants were unfairly dismissed. Applying section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and considering the redundancy provisions in section 139 and the guidance in Williams & Ors v Compair Maxam Ltd, Safeway Stores v Burrell, Langston v Cranfield University, Osinuga v BPP University Legal Team, Haycocks v ADP Pro UK Ltd and Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd, the tribunal found that although redundancy was the reason for dismissal, the respondent did not carry out any effective consultation or consider alternatives in a lawful way, so the dismissals were unfair.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded basic awards of £2,613 for Miss Bellucci and £3,066 for Mr Clarke. It also recorded compensatory awards made up of loss of statutory rights, loss of income to 18 October 2021, loss of accommodation and pension contributions, and applied a 25% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code on disciplinaries. The appendix records unfair dismissal subtotals of £30,003.49 and £30,456.49, and the recoupment annex recorded prescribed elements of £13,239.96 and £13,120.96 with corresponding balances payable to the claimants.
The tribunal also found that the respondent unreasonably failed to provide written particulars of employment and made awards of two weeks' pay of £1,133.60 to each claimant under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It further upheld the unlawful deductions from wages complaints, including holiday pay and national minimum wage underpayments, recording subtotals of £7,209.20 for Miss Bellucci and £29,701.53 for Mr Clarke. The respondent was separately ordered to pay the claimants' costs, summarily assessed at £5,500 inclusive of VAT.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant (Miss S Bellucci). The tribunal found unfair dismissal, applied a 25% uplift for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code, and recorded a subtotal award of £30,003.49. The recoupment annex gave a prescribed element of £13,239.96 and a balance of £16,763.53. | Upheld | — | £30,003 |
| Other | First claimant. Award of two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,134 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant. Unlawful deductions head covering holiday pay and national minimum wage underpayments; the appendix records a subtotal of £7,209.20. The printed component figures in Appendix 1 do not arithmetically tie to that subtotal, so the subtotal is taken as recorded. | Upheld | — | £7,209 |
| Unfair dismissal | Second claimant (Mr Robin Clarke). The tribunal found unfair dismissal, applied a 25% uplift for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code, and recorded a subtotal award of £30,456.49. The recoupment annex gave a prescribed element of £13,120.96 and a balance of £17,335.94. | Upheld | — | £30,456 |
| Other | Second claimant. Award of two weeks' pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,134 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £99,638
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,679
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £54,781
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.98(2)(c) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Williams & Ors v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Safeway Stores v Burrell
- Langston v Cranfield University
- Osinuga v BPP University Legal Team
- Haycocks v ADP Pro UK Ltd
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.