Case 1404292/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Large (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1404292/2019
- Decision date
- 2 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr B Large (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. It also recorded that the wrongful dismissal complaint succeeded by consent. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £6,313.49 in total. The award was broken down as a basic award of £529.88, loss of earnings of £2,952.14 net, other losses of £680.64 for pension and travel costs, £264.94 for loss of statutory employment rights, a 25% uplift for breach of the ACAS code of £1,239.37, £529.88 for failure to provide written particulars, and £116.64 to cover the shortfall in notice.
The recoupment section records a monetary award of £5,137.09, a prescribed element of £503.54 attributable to August and September 2019, and an amount by which the monetary award exceeds the prescribed element of £4,633.55. The basic award is recorded separately from the monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint succeeded. The parties agreed remedy by consent. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint succeeded by consent; the judgment records no separate contested remedy for this claim. | Settled | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,313
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £530
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,137
- 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.