Case 1401815/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Crannage v Overworld Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401815/2021
- Decision date
- 24 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mr P English, Mr R Spry Shute
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Crannage
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mr G Crannage brought a claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996, alternatively s100 ERA 1996, and a detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996, alternatively s44 ERA 1996, against Overworld Limited. The extracted text does not set out the tribunal's liability reasoning or separate findings on each claim.
It records that, by agreement between the parties, the respondent would pay £14,000 in total compensatory damages. The stated heads were £9,514.46 for loss of earnings, £2,363.65 as an uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code, and £2,121.89 for injury to feelings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The extract identifies a claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996, alternatively s100 ERA 1996, but does not state the tribunal's liability conclusion in the reproduced text. Remedy was recorded by agreement between the parties. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The extract identifies a detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996, alternatively s44 ERA 1996, but does not state the tribunal's liability conclusion in the reproduced text. Remedy was recorded by agreement between the parties. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £14,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.100 ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.44 ERA 1996
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.