Case 1600965/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Antony Ramshaw v Abingdon Flooring Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600965/2024
- Decision date
- 27 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Antony Ramshaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge S Jenkins, sitting at Cardiff on 22 and 23 August 2024, found that the claimant Mr Antony Ramshaw was unfairly dismissed by the respondent Abingdon Flooring Limited, and his complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a Basic Award of £5,019.66 and a Compensatory Award of £12,280.00, totalling £17,399.66. The judgment also records a grand total of £17,099.66 payable to the claimant, with a prescribed element of £12,080.00 attributable to the period 16 January 2024 to 23 August 2024, and an excess over the prescribed element of £5,019.66.
The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were stated to apply, and the Annex to the Judgment was drawn to the parties' attention. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment states the claimant was unfairly dismissed and the complaint succeeds. Basic Award £5,019.66 and Compensatory Award £12,280.00, totalling £17,399.66. The judgment also references a grand total of £17,099.66, which appears to be a typographical inconsistency in the judgment text. | Upheld | — | £17,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,400
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,020
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,280
- 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.