Case 1805351/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Porter v Pay Weekly Carpets Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805351/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal treated this as a Rule 21 judgment. The claim and response were posted to the respondent’s operating address on 15 October 2019, the response was due by 12 November 2019, and by 19 November 2019 no response had been received. The judge said there was sufficient information on the file to give judgment. Miss V Porter’s complaint of constructive unfair dismissal succeeded against Pay Weekly Carpets Ltd.
The judgment records that the tribunal’s calculations differed from those undertaken by the claimant so as to reflect the legal principles that would be applied at a hearing. It awarded a basic award of £1,423.08 and a compensatory award of £1,786.93. The itemised compensation lines in the extracted text are not perfectly aligned, but the judgment’s stated totals are clear.
The judgment also records a section 1 uplift of £1,423.08, producing a grand total of £4,633.09. No discrimination or other separate claim was recorded in the judgment text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Rule 21 judgment; the extracted compensation lines are line-jumbled, but the judgment records constructive unfair dismissal and a total award of £4,633.09. | Upheld | — | £4,633 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,633
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,423
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,787
- 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.