Case 1803027/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Taylor v Wellspring Academy Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803027/2020
- Decision date
- 27 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley On
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr J Taylor’s complaint of unfair dismissal against Wellspring Academy Trust. It stated that, if the respondent had followed a fair procedure, the claimant would have remained employed until 27 March 2020 and would then have been dismissed fairly with pay in lieu of notice for the period from the date of dismissal until 31 August 2020.
The tribunal reduced the basic award by 50% under section 122(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It increased the compensatory award by 10% because of breaches of the ACAS Code, and then reduced that compensatory award by 50% under section 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The parties reached agreement on the amount of compensation during the hearing, and the judgment records the total award as £6,226.98, made up of a basic award of £807 and a compensatory award of £5,419.98. Oral reasons, including the adjustments to the awards, were given during the hearing on 23 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By consent, the tribunal recorded compensation for unfair dismissal at £6,226.98, made up of a basic award of £807 and a compensatory award of £5,419.98. | Upheld | — | £6,227 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,227
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £807
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,420
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code
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.