Case 1804304/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M J Griffin v Gissing FE Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804304/2019
- Decision date
- 30 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M J Griffin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent's response was rejected as out of time and no application had been made to extend time under rule 20. On that basis, the tribunal found that Gissing FE Limited unfairly dismissed Mr M J Griffin.
The tribunal ordered compensation of £9,740, made up of a basic award of £1,440 and a compensatory award of £8,300. The basic award was calculated using a multiplier of 3 because the claimant was over 41 and had two continuous years' service, with weekly pay of £480.
The compensatory award was described as comprising £5,420 for loss of earnings, £960 for loss of statutory rights, and four weeks' pay of £1,920 for failure to provide written particulars of employment. The hearing listed for 6 December 2019 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's response was rejected as out of time and no application to extend time under rule 20 had been made, so judgment was entered under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £9,740 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,740
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,440
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,300
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, rule 21
- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, rule 20
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.