Case 2204141/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Mahmood, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204141/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O Segal QC
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr G Mahmood, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central, Employment Judge O Segal QC heard the joined claims of Mr Scott Curtis and Mr Charles Thomas against Cluttons LLP and Cluttons Employees Limited on 11 to 13 January 2021. The judgment records that both claimants succeeded in their claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deductions of wages.
The judgment then states that the respondents were severally liable to pay Mr Curtis £26,737.55 and Mr Thomas £36,631.43. The extracted text does not provide a separate breakdown of those lump sums by individual head of claim, so the awards are recorded in the judgment as overall sums for each claimant rather than itemised remedies.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that both claimants succeeded in unfair dismissal claims. It records separate lump-sum awards to Mr Curtis and Mr Thomas, but does not split those sums between the individual claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that both claimants succeeded in wrongful dismissal claims. It records separate lump-sum awards to Mr Curtis and Mr Thomas, but does not split those sums between the individual claims. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that both claimants succeeded in unlawful deductions of wages claims. It records separate lump-sum awards to Mr Curtis and Mr Thomas, but does not split those sums between the individual claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £63,369
- across all upheld claims
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.