Case 1805180/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ndongola v Harrison Spinks Beds Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805180/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr V Ndongola was unfairly dismissed by Harrison Spinks Beds Limited. The judgment was given orally at a hearing in Leeds on 27 and 28 March 2023, with written reasons not provided unless requested under the note at the end of the decision.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £3,647.68 by way of compensatory award. It said that this reflected losses of earnings and employer pension contributions for the periods 27 May 2022 to 3 June 2022 and 28 June 2022 to 16 December 2022, together with £500 for loss of statutory rights. The tribunal then reduced those sums by one third because, had the respondent carried out an appropriate consultation exercise, there was a chance the claimant would have been dismissed by reason of redundancy.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had received universal credit and that the recoupment provisions applied. It identified a prescribed element of £3,147.68 for the period from 27 May 2022 to 28 March 2023, and stated that the total award exceeded the prescribed element by £500.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It reduced the compensatory award by one third because, had an appropriate consultation exercise been carried out, there was a chance the claimant would have been dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Upheld | — | £3,648 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,648
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,648
- 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.