Case 1600353/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Davies v Oscar Mayer Ltd. HELD AT: Mold — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600353/2025
- Decision date
- 11 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that Mr K Davies was unfairly dismissed by Oscar Mayer Ltd on 4 September 2024. The written judgment is a short record of the decision, with reasons having been given orally at the hearing.
For remedy, the Tribunal recorded that the basic and compensatory awards were both to be reduced by 15% under sections 122 and 123 Employment Rights Act 1996 to reflect the claimant's conduct. The parties had agreed quantum at 100% in the sum of £19,400.96, and the respondent was ordered to pay the net sum of £16,490.82. The judgment states that no evidence was heard on remedy issues and no further remedy judgment was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Quantum was agreed at 100% in the sum of £19,400.96, with a 15% reduction under sections 122 and 123 Employment Rights Act 1996, producing a net sum of £16,490.82. The judgment does not split the award between basic and compensatory components. | Upheld | — | £16,491 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,491
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 122 and 123 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.