Case 1806298/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Martin v Scot Group Ltd T/A Thrifty Car and Van Rental — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806298/2019
- Decision date
- 27 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mrs J Blesic, Mr M Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Martin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Leeds on 26 and 27 October 2020, Employment Judge Maidment sitting with Mrs J Blesic and Mr M Brewer determined claims brought by Mr D Martin against Scot Group Limited t/a Thrifty Car and Van Rental. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded, and that he was dismissed in breach of contract.
The judgment records that the monetary amounts were agreed between the parties. The respondent was ordered to pay £1,206.32 net as damages for breach of contract, described as notice pay, together with a basic award of £603.16 and a compensatory award of £4,187.72 for unfair dismissal. The claimant's complaints of race discrimination failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal recorded a basic award of £603.16 and a compensatory award of £4,187.72. | Upheld | — | £4,791 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal was found to be in breach of contract, and the agreed damages were £1,206.32 net for notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,206 |
| Race discrimination | The claimant's complaints of race discrimination failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,997
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £603
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,188
- 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.