Case 1404463/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Etheridge v 1) Mr Andres Montana 2) Montana Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404463/2021
- Decision date
- 19 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Etheridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in Southampton on 11 and 12 July 2022. It dismissed the claim against the first respondent, Mr Andres Montana, because he was not the claimant's employer at the date of dismissal.
The tribunal found that Mr J Etheridge was unfairly dismissed by the second respondent, Montana Ltd. The judgment records the claimant as appearing in person and the respondents as represented by Mr Montana.
As a remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,240.38 and 2 weeks' pay of £992.30 under section 38 Employment Act 2002. The claimant's application for costs was dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would follow unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against the first respondent, Mr Andres Montana, dismissed because he was not the claimant's employer at the date of dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against the second respondent, Montana Ltd, succeeded. The tribunal found that Mr Etheridge was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £1,240.38 plus 2 weeks' pay of £992.30 under section 38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £2,233 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,233
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,240
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £992
- 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.