Case 1805114/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Clear Line Communications Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805114/2023
- Decision date
- 20 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr I Thompson was dismissed by Clear Line Communications Limited on 31 July 2023 by reason of redundancy. It awarded him a redundancy payment of £15,600, calculated on the basis of a gross weekly wage of £520, his age of 64 on the dismissal date, and 25 years' continuity of service.
The tribunal also found that the respondent terminated his employment without notice in circumstances where he was not liable to summary dismissal. On that basis it held that he had been wrongfully dismissed and awarded damages of £6,240, being the equivalent of 12 weeks' notice pay.
In addition, the tribunal found that the claimant had 1.33 days of holiday accrued but untaken as at 31 July 2023 and awarded £138.32 for holiday pay. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 31 July 2023 and awarded a redundancy payment calculated using a gross weekly wage of £520, age 64 at the dismissal date, and 25 years' continuity of service. | Upheld | — | £15,600 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent terminated the claimant's employment without notice in circumstances where he was not liable to summary dismissal and awarded damages equivalent to 12 weeks' notice pay. | Upheld | — | £6,240 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had 1.33 days of holiday accrued but untaken as at 31 July 2023 and awarded compensation for that amount. | Upheld | — | £138 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,978
- across all upheld claims
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.