Case 2202763/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For v Left Shift It Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202763/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Left Shift It Limited. The respondent did not defend the claim, and judgment in default was entered for the claimant on 22 May 2020. This hearing was listed to determine remedy only.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had six complete years' service at the effective date of termination, earned £1,209 net per week, and had employer pension contributions of 5% of gross pay. It found that after dismissal he quickly found alternative employment, starting on 17 May 2019, and that his losses stopped at that date.
The tribunal decided the claimant had made reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss. It awarded a basic award of £4,725 and compensatory sums for three weeks' net loss of earnings, loss of statutory rights, and three weeks' employer pension contributions, making a total unfair dismissal award of £9,126.05.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment in default had already been entered for the claimant on the unfair dismissal claim; this remedy judgment determined compensation only. The judgment states it does not relate to breach of contract or unpaid wages during employment. | Upheld | — | £9,126 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,126
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,725
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,401
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Archibald Feightage Limited v Wilson [1974] IRLR 10
- duty to mitigate loss
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.