Case 1807299/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Thompson v Persimmon Homes Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807299/2019
- Decision date
- 15 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Maidment sat alone in Leeds on 10 September 2020. The tribunal amended the respondent's name by consent to Persimmon Homes Limited. It then found that Mr S Thompson's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal awarded a total of £4,940.51, made up of a basic award of £2,362.50 and a compensatory award of £2,578.01. The judgment records that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply to that award.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded him £2,147.63 in damages on that claim. No discrimination, whistleblowing, or other separate statutory claims are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded and awarded a basic award of £2,362.50 and a compensatory award of £2,578.01. | Upheld | — | £4,941 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract and awarded damages of £2,147.63. | Upheld | — | £2,148 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,941
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,363
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,578
- 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.