Case 1405051/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405051/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Southampton by video before Employment Judge Rayner on 12 and 13 August 2024, considered claims brought by Mr S Uzunov against Pro-Force Limited. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Miss Johns of counsel.
The tribunal found the claim of unfair dismissal to be well founded and it succeeded. The claims of unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract were found not to be well founded and were dismissed.
By way of remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant total compensation for unfair dismissal of £18,983.85, comprising a basic award of £2,214.00 and a compensatory award of £16,769.85. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the claim well founded; total compensation of £18,983.85 awarded (basic £2,214.00 + compensatory £16,769.85). | Upheld | — | £18,984 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal held the claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Tribunal held the claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,984
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,214
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £16,770
- 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.