Case 1803304/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Jones v Tango Networks UK Ltd and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803304/2021
- Decision date
- 31 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr M Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing by telephone on 25 August 2021, Employment Judge JM Wade dealt only with the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims against the first respondent. The tribunal recorded that there had been postal service to the respondent's registered office, no response by the return date, and no appearance for the respondent. It therefore gave judgment under Rule 21. The remaining claims were listed for a hearing on 4 January 2022.
The tribunal held that the constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were well founded and succeeded. It ordered the first respondent to pay £2,307.70 gross damages for two weeks' notice, a £1,614.00 basic award, and a £42,249.92 compensatory award, making a total award of £46,171.52. The recoupment regulations applied, with a prescribed period of 16 March 2021 to 25 August 2021, a prescribed element of £41,749.92, and an excess over the prescribed element of £4,421.60.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment refers to 'constructive unfair dismissal'; the award comprised the basic award and compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £43,864 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Gross damages were awarded in respect of two weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | £2,308 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £46,172
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,614
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £42,250
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.