Case 1400583/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jay Martin v F.O.Two Ltd By: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400583/2021
- Decision date
- 30 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jay Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mr Jay Martin was unfairly dismissed by F.O. Two Ltd. The judgment was given orally at the hearing before Employment Judge Craft, with the written record sent to the parties on 30 December 2021.
The Tribunal awarded £400 for loss of statutory rights, £13,488 for loss of earnings from 18 December 2020 to the date of hearing, and £1,728.32 for future loss of earnings. No separate legal reasons were provided in the written record beyond the finding of unfair dismissal and the remedy ordered.
The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were applied to the compensatory award. The judgment records a grand total of £15,616.32, a prescribed element of £3,751.20 covering the period 18 December 2020 to 19 February 2021, and an excess over the prescribed element of £11,865.12.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. It awarded £400 for loss of statutory rights, £13,488 for loss of earnings from 18 December 2020 to the date of hearing, and £1,728.32 for future loss of earnings. Recoupment Regulations applied; the grand total was £15,616.32, the prescribed element was £3,751.20, and the excess over the prescribed element was £11,865.12. | Upheld | — | £15,616 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,616
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £400
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £15,216
- 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.