Case 1401146/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr. Matthew Sutton of Peninsula — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401146/2022
- Decision date
- 13 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Lumby Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs Angela Ware’s claim for unfair dismissal by reason of constructive dismissal succeeded. The judgment records that the decision was given orally at the hearing, so written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,293.29. That figure was calculated as one and a half weeks’ gross pay of £509.62 for each of the claimant’s three complete years of employment.
The tribunal also awarded a compensatory award of £341.50. That was calculated from one week’s net pay of £401.40 together with a 5% pension contribution for that week, less a 20% reduction for contributory conduct.
The total award was £2,634.79. The tribunal further recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply in this case.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim by reason of constructive dismissal succeeded. It awarded a basic award of £2,293.29 and a compensatory award of £341.50, making a total of £2,634.79. The compensatory award included a 20% reduction for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | £2,635 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,635
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,293
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £342
- 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.