Case 2202345/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Vision Security Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202345/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 and did not attend the hearing. The claimant gave sworn evidence confirming his ET1 and attachment, which the tribunal accepted. The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. The tribunal records that the dismissal was on 6 April 2019.
On remedy, the claimant said he had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain another job since dismissal, had not been provided with a reference, and was 63 years old. The tribunal found he had made reasonable attempts to mitigate his loss and was unlikely to obtain another job before the anniversary of his dismissal, if at all. It considered it just and equitable to award him a year's pay as the compensatory award. The judgment then awarded a basic award of £2,084.20, loss of statutory rights of £463.20, a compensatory award of £24,086.40, and a total of £26,633.80.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim succeeds and that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed. | Upheld | — | £26,634 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £26,634
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,084
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £24,086
- 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.