Case 2200454/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A. Mili v Mr. Fawaz Al-Hasawi — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200454/2022
- Decision date
- 30 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Galbraith-Marten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A. Mili
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis written record is a remedy judgment following an unfair dismissal finding. Employment Judge J Galbraith-Marten, sitting alone at London Central by CVP on 30 May 2023, ordered the respondent to pay the claimant compensation for unfair dismissal of £48,515.
The basic award was calculated at £2,448, shown as 1.5 x 3 x £544. The compensatory award was based on immediate loss of earnings from 15 December 2021 to 15 December 2022, using 52 weeks x £807 to produce £41,964, with no deduction for wages earned and no adjustments.
The tribunal also allowed £500 for loss of statutory rights and carried out a grossing-up exercise. For recoupment purposes under the Employment Protection (Recoupment for Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996, it recorded a prescribed element of £45,567 for the period 15 December 2021 to 30 May 2023, a total monetary award of £48,515, and an excess over the prescribed element of £2,948.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy judgment only; the written record does not set out the liability reasons, but it records an award of compensation for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £46,067 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £48,515
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,448
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £46,067
- 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.