Case 1801899/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hatfield v Barnsley Hospice — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801899/2022
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds By CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hatfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant's detriment claim, describing it as misconceived. The extracted judgment text does not identify the statutory basis of that detriment claim, so it cannot be classified more precisely from the available text.
The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was found well founded. The tribunal awarded a total of £6,133.63, made up of a basic award of £2,762.94 and a compensatory award of £3,370.69. The judgment also records that the recoupment regulations do not apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismissed a 'detriment claim' as misconceived. The extracted text does not specify the statutory basis for the detriment claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded and awarded a total of £6,133.63, comprising a basic award of £2,762.94 and a compensatory award of £3,370.69. | Upheld | — | £6,134 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,134
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,763
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,371
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.