Case 1601239/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Priddle v Trendaset Limited Heard: by video — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601239/2020
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Priddle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the principal reason for Mr A Priddle’s dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures. On that basis, his claim of unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded.
The tribunal refused the claimant’s application for costs. It then awarded compensation by way of a compensatory award only, with a prescribed element of £5,054.39 and a non-prescribed element of £851.88, making a grand total of £5,906.27. The prescribed element covered losses less notice and mitigation for the period 23 January 2020 to 9 December 2020, and the non-prescribed element covered losses less mitigation for the period 10 December 2020 to 5 March 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant had made protected disclosures, so the section 103A unfair dismissal claim succeeded. | Upheld | — | £5,906 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,906
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,906
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.