Case 1604125/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Jefferies v Emmaus South Wales — 2025
- Case reference
- 1604125/2024
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Jefferies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in Cardiff on 3 and 4 February 2025 before Employment Judge Cawthray. It found that Mr J Jefferies’ claim for unfair dismissal was well-founded against Emmaus South Wales.
For that unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal ordered payment of a basic award of £2,316.60 and a compensatory award of £5,004.50. The written judgment states that the compensatory award included a 25% ACAS uplift.
The tribunal also found Mr Jefferies’ wrongful dismissal claim well-founded. It recorded that no separate award was payable for that claim because compensation for unpaid notice was factored into the compensatory award.
The judgment contains no separate written reasons, and no discrimination, whistleblowing, redundancy, or other additional claims are identified in the decision text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,316.60 and a compensatory award of £5,004.50, the latter stated to include a 25% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £7,321 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well-founded but said no separate award was payable because compensation for unpaid notice was factored into the compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,321
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,317
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,005
- 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.