Case 1602671/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Collins v Nathaniel Car Sales Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602671/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- Remotely
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Collins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr C Collins was unfairly dismissed by Nathaniel Car Sales Ltd. It therefore found his unfair dismissal claim well-founded and upheld it. The extracted judgment does not set out the underlying liability reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
At remedy, the parties agreed that the Claimant had already been paid a sum equivalent to the basic award. They also agreed that his net loss of earnings from dismissal to the date of the hearing was £33,126.55, and that his ongoing net loss of earnings at the date of hearing was £2,498.21 per month.
The compensatory award was calculated on the basis of net loss to the hearing date plus three months' net future loss. The tribunal recorded a compensatory award of £40,621.18, a gross-up figure for tax of £2,655.30, and £300 for loss of statutory rights. It ordered the Respondent to pay a total of £43,576.48 and recorded the basic award as £0 in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent and that his unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally, so no fuller liability reasoning is set out in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £43,576
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £40,621
- 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.