Case 1600493/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jason King v Peter’s Food Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600493/2022
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grubb
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jason King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone, heard Mr Jason King's claims against Peter's Food Services Limited at Cardiff via CVP from 5 to 7 December 2022. It held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and expressly found that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant contrary to section 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On remedy, the tribunal limited the period of loss for the compensatory award to 2 weeks under the principles of Polkey v A E Dayton Services. It recorded that the parties had agreed a gross sum of £1,092 for compensation for unfair dismissal, made up of a £364 basic award and a £728 compensatory award, with the respondent required to make the appropriate deductions of tax and national insurance.
The claimant's complaint of an unauthorised deduction from wages was found not well-founded, and the complaint of wrongful dismissal was also found not well-founded. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and no further written reasons were provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found well-founded under section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal limited the compensatory period of loss to 2 weeks applying Polkey v A E Dayton Services and awarded an agreed gross sum of £1,092, comprising a £364 basic award and a £728 compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £1,092 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint that there had been an unauthorised deduction from wages was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of wrongful dismissal was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,092
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £364
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £728
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 100(1)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services
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.