Case 1406409/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Gilmour v Pentewan Sands Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406409/2020
- Decision date
- 30 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Gilmour
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard at Southampton by CVP on 23-24 August 2021, the tribunal found Mr Matthew Gilmour's unfair dismissal claim well founded and successful against Pentewan Sands Limited. His breach of contract claim was found not well founded and was dismissed. His unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
On remedy, the tribunal reduced the basic award by 80% because it considered that just and equitable. It increased the compensatory award by 15% for breach of the ACAS Code of Conduct, and then reduced that award by 80% for contributory fault. The total award was £2,694.94, made up of a basic award of £2,098.40 and a compensatory award of £596.54.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,695 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records this claim as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,695
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,098
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £597
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable
- ACAS Code of Conduct
- contributory fault
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.