Case 1601152/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Terence Jones v Dinas Windows Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601152/2021
- Decision date
- 19 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H. V. Dieu
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Terence Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Cardiff on 12 April 2022 before Employment Judge H. V. Dieu. The tribunal found that Terence Jones’s claim for unfair dismissal was well founded. It awarded a basic award of £4,433.40, calculated from £4,926 less a 10% reduction for contributory fault.
The tribunal also awarded a compensatory award of £2,779.20. That figure was made up of £1,970.40 for notice pay and £500 for loss of statutory rights, with the latter element uplifted by 25% for failure to follow ACAS and then reduced by 10% for contributory fault. The judgment states that the recoupment provisions apply.
The claimant’s wrongful dismissal claim was also found well founded, but the tribunal recorded that no compensation would be awarded on that claim because the unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found well founded. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,433.40 after a 10% reduction for contributory fault and a compensatory award of £2,779.20 made up of £1,970.40 notice pay and £500 for loss of statutory rights, uplifted by 25% for failure to follow ACAS and then reduced by 10% for contributory fault. | Upheld | — | £7,213 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Found well founded, but no compensation was awarded because the unfair dismissal claim succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,213
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,433
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,779
- 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.