Case 1810980/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Dunhill v Robinson Contract Services Limited AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1810980/2018
- Decision date
- 23 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Hull
- Panel members
- Mr M Weller JP, Mr K Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Dunhill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Hull on 20 and 21 August 2019 before Employment Judge Lancaster with members Mr M Weller JP and Mr K Smith, the tribunal held that Mr A Dunhill had been wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract. The written record states that damages, including any additional award for failure to comply with the relevant ACAS code of practice, were agreed in the sum of £875.00.
The tribunal also recorded that all other complaints were dismissed. The extracted judgment does not identify those other complaints individually or give written reasons, stating only that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records this as 'wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract' and states that damages, including any additional award for failure to comply with the relevant ACAS code of practice, were agreed at £875.00. | Upheld | — | £875 |
| Other | The judgment states that 'all other complaints are dismissed' but does not itemise those remaining complaints in the extracted text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £875
- across all upheld claims
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.