Case 1801440/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person v David Bull T/a The Davy Lamp Company — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801440/2020
- Decision date
- 1 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by telephone before Employment Judge Wedderspoon, held that the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract were well founded. The judgment records that the breach of contract claim was resolved by consent, with an award of £87.50 to the claimant.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal recorded a total monetary award of £9,055.14. It specified a prescribed element of £5,515.01 covering the period 26 January 2020 to 25 September 2020, and awarded the remaining £3,540.13 outside the prescribed element. No separate basic award is identified in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was well founded. The judgment states the total monetary award payable for this claim was £9,055.14; the extracted text shows '£9,055. 14.', which appears to be a spacing/formatting issue. The prescribed element was £5,515.01 for the period 26 January 2020 to 25 September 2020, with £3,540.13 awarded as the balance outside the prescribed element. | Upheld | — | £9,055 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the breach of contract claim was well founded and, by consent, awarded £87.50. | Upheld | — | £88 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,143
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £9,055
- 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.