Case 1400660/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Toone v Hunts Foodservice Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400660/2019
- Decision date
- 13 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Toone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Southampton on 13 September 2019 before Employment Judge Gray. Mr Toone appeared in person. Hunts Foodservice Ltd did not attend or send a representative, and the tribunal refused the respondent's application for an extension of time to present its response under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The judgment records no separate findings on any other claim type. The tribunal then made a basic award and a compensatory award in favour of Mr Toone.
The basic award was assessed at £1,524. The judgment explains that this was based on two years of complete service, a multiplier of 1.5 because the claimant was aged 45 at the date of dismissal on 23 January 2019, and a weekly pay figure of £508. The compensatory award was £9,139.77, giving a total award of £10,663.77.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent failed to attend or be represented. The tribunal refused the respondent's Rule 47 application for an extension of time to present a response. | Upheld | — | £10,664 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,664
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,524
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,140
- 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.