Case 1405845/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Howland v Outlet Trade Frames Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405845/2023
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Howland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton on 12 December 2024, before Employment Judge Dawson, the tribunal refused the respondent's application for an adjournment. It found that Mr T Howland had been unfairly dismissed by Outlet Trade Frames Limited and ordered the respondent to pay him a basic award of £1,041.27 and a compensatory award of £11,565.40.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's notice pay claim was well founded, but it made no separate award in respect of that claim. The judgment records that the claimant's other claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered a basic award of £1,041.27 and a compensatory award of £11,565.40. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said the claimant's notice pay claim was well founded, but it made no separate award for that head of claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's other claims were dismissed, but the extracted text does not identify them individually. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,607
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,041
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,565
- 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.