Case 1402120/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Timothy May v Carleton Lord Carpets Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1402120/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sanger REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Timothy May
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol by CVP on 21 February 2025, found that Mr Timothy May had been unfairly dismissed by Carleton Lord Carpets Ltd. It awarded him a gross basic award of £7,775.46. No compensatory award was made under s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the tribunal applied the principle in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142.
The tribunal also found that the dismissal was in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £5,488.56. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £759.25 gross. A further award of £1,829.52 was made because, when proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were stated to apply. The judgment recorded a total monetary award of £15,852.79, with a prescribed element of £7,775.46 covering the period from 31 May 2024 to 21 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award only. It made no compensatory award under s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996 because of Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited. | Upheld | — | £7,775 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £5,489 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of the stated gross sum. | Upheld | — | £759 |
| Other | The tribunal found that, when proceedings were begun, the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars and awarded damages. This was not described in the judgment as a separate contractual claim. | Upheld | — | £1,830 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,853
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,775
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.