Case 1806724/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hughes v Mr G Phelan — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806724/2020
- Decision date
- 7 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr Hughes's unfair dismissal complaint as not well-founded. It upheld his wrongful dismissal complaint and ordered Mr G Phelan to pay three weeks' notice pay of £287.76.
The tribunal also found that, at the time of dismissal, the respondent was in breach of s1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. It said there were no exceptional circumstances making an award under s38 Employment Act 2002 unjust or inequitable, and no circumstances indicating the higher award, so it ordered two weeks' pay of £191.84.
The judgment records total monetary awards of £287.76 for notice pay and £191.84 for the s38 award, making a total of £479.60.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim well-founded and ordered three weeks' notice pay. | Upheld | — | £288 |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of s1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 at the time of dismissal and made an award under s38 Employment Act 2002 of two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £480
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s1(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s38 Employment Act 2002
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.