Case 1601824/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr N Monro v Beechwood Commercials Limited — 2021

Case reference: 1601824/2020
Decision date: 31 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Venue: Cardiff via Cloud Video Platform

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr N Monro

Respondent

Beechwood Commercials Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the Cardiff Cloud Video Platform hearing on 27 August 2021, before Employment Judge Brewer, Mr N Monro's claim of unfair dismissal succeeded. The judgment also records that his claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. The written record does not set out fuller reasons beyond recording those outcomes.

The tribunal awarded a basic award of £554 and a compensatory award of £2,124. It also applied a 25% uplift of £531 under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. In addition, it awarded £554 in respect of the section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim, producing a total award of £3,763.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Claim of unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £554, a compensatory award of £2,124, and a 25% uplift of £531 under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.	Upheld	—	£3,209
Other	Claim under section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal awarded 2 weeks' pay of £554 in respect of this claim.	Upheld	—	£554

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £3,763; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £554; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £2,124; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.