Case 1402148/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Haslam v JETS (Bournemouth) Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402148/2022
- Decision date
- 17 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Street Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Haslam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Southampton CVP hearing on 3 and 4 May 2023, Employment Judge Street determined Mr Andrew Haslam's claim against JETS (Bournemouth) Ltd. The tribunal upheld the claimant's breach of contract claim and ordered the respondent to pay £21,862 in respect of wrongful dismissal.
The judgment records that the award was itemised as £20,625 for loss of salary and £1,237.50 for pension contributions. The written record does not set out any separate statutory basis for the monetary award beyond the breach of contract finding.
The claim in respect of holiday pay was dismissed. The respondent's counterclaims were also dismissed. The judgment was given orally and the written record was sent to the parties on 17 May 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claim succeeded and orders payment of £21,862 in respect of wrongful dismissal, itemised as £20,625 loss of salary and £1,237.50 pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £21,862 |
| Holiday pay | The claim in respect of holiday pay was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's counterclaims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,862
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £21,862
- 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.