Case 1401088/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr A Burgess (Consultant) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401088/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Emerton sat alone at Southampton on 8 October 2019. The respondent’s response had not been received, and the tribunal entered judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. It held that the claimant’s claims for wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal, and failure to pay holiday pay were all well founded.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,999.20 for wrongful dismissal. For unfair dismissal, it awarded a basic award of £1,999.20 and a compensatory award of £1,676.00. It also ordered payment of £1,432.76 in respect of holiday pay.
The tribunal stated that the holiday pay sum was to be paid net and that, like the other sums awarded, it was not liable for deductions for tax and National Insurance. It further recorded that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well founded under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and ordered compensation of £1,999.20. | Upheld | — | £1,999 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well founded under rule 21. It awarded a basic award of £1,999.20 and a compensatory award of £1,676.00. | Upheld | — | £3,675 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a failure to pay holiday pay and orders compensation of £1,432.76. | Upheld | — | £1,433 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,107
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,999
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,676
- 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.