Case 1801866/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Marshall v A1 Towbar Systems Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801866/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Marshall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal held that Mr B Marshall’s complaint that he was unfairly dismissed by A1 Towbar Systems Limited was well-founded. The judgment records a total compensation award of £10,782.50, made up of a basic award of £6,084 and a compensatory award of £4,698.50.
The tribunal found that it had not been established that the claimant would or might have been dismissed in any event but for the unfair dismissal, so the compensatory award was not reduced. The recoupment provisions did not apply. The respondent’s £1,000 deposit, paid as a condition of being entitled to pursue a defence to the unfair dismissal claim, was ordered to be repaid to the respondent.
The schedule to the judgment set out the compensatory loss calculation as loss of earnings from 29 March 2019 to 11 April 2019 of £1,014, differential in wages from 11 April 2019 to 26 April 2019 of £2,316, future loss for nine weeks of £868.50, and loss of statutory rights of £500.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By consent, the complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded. Compensation was assessed at £10,782.50, made up of a £6,084 basic award and a £4,698.50 compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £10,783 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,783
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,084
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,699
- 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.