Case 1403196/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hackwell For the v A.J. Nehlig & Co Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403196/2019
- Decision date
- 28 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hackwell For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not appear at the hearing before Employment Judge Rayner in Southampton on 28 February 2020. The tribunal found that Mr J Hackwell was unfairly constructively dismissed from his employment on 1 June 2019.
It recorded that Mr Hackwell’s average weekly wage was £352.11, that he was entitled to £100 per week while on lay off, and that he was entitled to sick pay of £94.25 per week while off sick. Those figures were then used in the compensation calculation.
The tribunal ordered notice pay of £4,225.95 for 12 weeks, a basic award of £6,866.15, and a compensatory award of £7,243.58. The compensatory award was made up of £565.50 for six weeks’ sick pay, £2,100.00 for 21 weeks’ lay-off pay, and £4,578.08 for 13 weeks at the weekly wage.
The total award recorded in the judgment was £18,335.68.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that Mr Hackwell was unfairly constructively dismissed on 1 June 2019. The judgment does not separately identify a breach of contract claim, although it awards notice pay and other sums. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,336
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,866
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,244
- 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.