Case 1805416/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Arampatzis v XPO Supply Chain UK Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805416/2020
- Decision date
- 27 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms W Harrison, Mr D Pugh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Arampatzis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr F Arampatzis’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. It ordered XPO Supply Chain UK Limited to pay a basic award of £523.13 and a compensatory award of £348.75. The judgment records that both sums were reduced by 50% to reflect the claimant’s conduct prior to dismissal.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s complaints of direct race discrimination and indirect religious discrimination. No further remedy was awarded on those discrimination claims. The published judgment gives the outcome and remedy only, and does not set out fuller written reasons because reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal complaint and awarded a basic award of £523.13 and a compensatory award of £348.75, both reduced by 50% to reflect the claimant's conduct prior to dismissal. | Upheld | — | £872 |
| Race discrimination | The judgment describes this as a direct race discrimination complaint; it was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment describes this as an indirect religious discrimination complaint; it was dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £872
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £523
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £349
- 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.