Case 2202626/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Juncal Pujols Sanchez v Bay Dining Ltd Heard via Microsoft Teams (London Central) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202626/2020
- Decision date
- 19 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson
- Panel members
- Ms T Shaah, Mr R Baber
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Juncal Pujols Sanchez
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that Mr Juncal Pujols Sanchez succeeded in his claims of unfair dismissal, failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment, and trade union detriment. The written record is a short judgment and does not set out the tribunal's reasoning beyond recording the successful outcomes.
The award list recorded a basic award of £709.70, a compensatory award of £2,554.85, and an ACAS uplift of £816.14. It also recorded £601.34 for failure to provide the s1 statement and £300.00 for loss of statutory rights, producing a total award of £4,982.03.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal claim succeeded and awarded a basic award of £709.70, a compensatory award of £2,554.85, and an ACAS uplift of £816.14. | Upheld | — | £4,081 |
| Other | The tribunal recorded that the claim that the claimant was not provided with a statement of terms and conditions of employment succeeded. The award list included £601.34 for failure to provide the s1 statement and £300.00 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £901 |
| Trade union | The tribunal recorded that the claim for trade union detriment succeeded, but the written record does not allocate a separate monetary figure to this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,982
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £710
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,555
- 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.