Case 1801474/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Sharp v Futurama Limited (in administration) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801474/2023
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Sharp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short follow-on judgment on remedy in Mr David Sharp’s unfair dismissal claim against Futurama Limited (in administration). The tribunal said its earlier judgment of 16 October 2023 had already dealt with the underlying claims, and this judgment was limited to quantifying Mr Sharp’s compensatory award.
The tribunal recorded that Mr Sharp’s employment would have ended in any event on 5 May 2023, the date the respondent went into administration. It therefore calculated loss only for the period from the end of the notice period on 25 March 2023 to 5 May 2023.
In carrying out that calculation, the tribunal used gross monthly pay of £5,833.33, compared it with gross pay from Mr Sharp’s new employment of £4,583, and found a gross monthly difference of £205.53. That produced a loss of earnings figure of £284.58 for the relevant six-week period.
The tribunal then applied a 25% ACAS Code uplift for failure to follow any disciplinary procedure, as referenced to paragraphs 19 and 25 of the earlier judgment, and awarded a total compensatory sum of £355.73 gross.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This judgment quantified the compensatory award only; the tribunal referred back to its previous judgment dated 16 October 2023 on the underlying unfair dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | £356 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £356
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £356
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ACAS Code uplift
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.