Case 1811639/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Semple of Counsel (instructed by DAS Law) v Implant Dental Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1811639/2018
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Semple of Counsel (instructed by DAS Law)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Sheffield hearing on 13 December 2019, Employment Judge Little proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the respondent had filed no valid response and did not attend or appear. The case was therefore determined on that basis.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and holiday pay succeeded. It awarded £1,510.86 for wrongful dismissal, £2,266.38 as a basic award and £3,813.27 as a compensatory award for unfair dismissal, and £650.55 for untaken holiday pay.
The tribunal also made a further award of £1,007.24 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for the respondent's failure to provide written terms of employment. The total amount payable forthwith was £9,247.58.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal made a basic award of £2,266.38 and a compensatory award of £3,813.27, calculated from the claimant's schedule of loss filed on 5 November 2019. | Upheld | — | £6,080 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Damages of £1,510.86 were awarded and ordered payable forthwith. | Upheld | — | £1,511 |
| Holiday pay | Award for untaken holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £651 |
| Other | Further award under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written terms of employment. | Upheld | — | £1,007 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,248
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,266
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,813
- 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.