Case 1403061/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Kuglin v Every Cloud Vape Shop Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403061/2022
- Decision date
- 11 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Frazer Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Kuglin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Bristol Employment Tribunals on 20 September 2022. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined that the entire claim could properly be decided under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal awarded the claimant compensation for unfair dismissal. The award comprised a basic award of £2,508.00 and a compensatory award of £3,376.98, together with a 25% ACAS uplift of £844.25.
The total sum payable was £6,729.23. The judgment records no separate findings on other claims, no interest award, and no lay members, as the decision was issued by Employment Judge A Frazer sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 default judgment. The respondent did not present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge determined the whole claim could be decided on that basis. | Upheld | — | £6,729 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,729
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,508
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,377
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.