Case 1601100/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr J Thomas (2) Mr L Griffiths (3) Mr J Lindley (4) Mr T Jones v BRGP Limited (in liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601100/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr J Thomas (2) Mr L Griffiths (3) Mr J Lindley (4) Mr T Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims of Mr J Thomas, Mr L Griffiths, Mr J Lindley and Mr T Jones against BRGP Limited (in liquidation) on 30 November 2023 at Cardiff by video. The respondent was not present or represented. Employment Judge S Jenkins recorded that the claimants were unfairly dismissed.
The judgment orders payment of £1,784.04 to Mr Thomas, £1,422.69 to Mr Griffiths, £1,323.09 to Mr Lindley and £1,522.26 to Mr Jones. No separate breakdown of the awards is given in the written record, and the notes state that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Thomas was found to have been unfairly dismissed and was awarded £1,784.04. | Upheld | — | £1,784 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Griffiths was found to have been unfairly dismissed and was awarded £1,422.69. | Upheld | — | £1,423 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Lindley was found to have been unfairly dismissed and was awarded £1,323.09. | Upheld | — | £1,323 |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Jones was found to have been unfairly dismissed and was awarded £1,522.26. | Upheld | — | £1,522 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,052
- across all upheld claims
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.