Case 1402417/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Owen v Meadowbank Holidays Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402417/2020
- Decision date
- 18 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Owen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dawson held that Mr P Owen was unfairly dismissed by Meadowbank Holidays Limited. The judgment records that the basic award was reduced by 50% pursuant to section 122 Employment Rights Act 1996 and, by consent, assessed at £3,126.42.
The compensatory award was reduced by 100% under section 122 Employment Rights Act 1996 and assessed at nil. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £3,126.42, and the judgment notes that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 do not apply to that award.
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. The basic award was reduced by 50% under section 122 Employment Rights Act 1996 and, by consent, assessed at £3,126.42. The compensatory award was reduced by 100% under section 122 and assessed at nil. | Upheld | — | £3,126 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,126
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,126
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 122 Employment Rights Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.