Case 1401437/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Aly (Counsel) For the v Mr. J Brotherton (Non- Practicing Solicitor) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401437/2018
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Aly (Counsel) For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Mathew Hyett was unfairly dismissed by Stock Bounty Ltd T/A Country Fare. The judgment records that the finding was made at Southampton after hearings on 12 and 13 February 2020 before Employment Judge Rayner.
The remedy was recorded as agreed by consent. The respondent was ordered to pay £8,820.52 in compensation, comprising a basic award of £978.99 and a compensatory award of £7,842.52. The compensatory award was described as £6,274.02 uplifted by 25% for failure to follow ACAS guidelines.
The claimant's application for costs was dismissed. The written record also notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay compensation of £8,820.52, made up of a basic award of £978.99 and a compensatory award of £7,842.52; the compensatory award included a 25% uplift from £6,274.02 for failure to follow ACAS guidelines. | Upheld | — | £8,821 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,821
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £979
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,843
- 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.