Case 1800549/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Foulger v Sky In-home Services Limited AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800549/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Foulger
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Foulger was fairly dismissed, so the unfair dismissal claim did not succeed. The judgment does not set out any separate statutory reasoning in the short text provided, but the outcome is stated directly in the dispositive paragraph.
The tribunal also held that Mr Foulger was wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract. It recorded that the damages award was increased by 5 per cent because of the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS code of practice, read together with the respondent's own express policy.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant an agreed gross sum of £6,015.03 by 10 December 2019. The judgment does not split that figure between heads of loss, and no separate awards for other remedies are recorded in the extract.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract. The damages figure was increased by 5% because of the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS code of practice, read with its own express policy, and the agreed gross sum ordered was £6,015.03. | Upheld | — | £6,015 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,015
- across all upheld claims
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.