Case 2204683/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y v N’Guessan Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204683/2018
- Decision date
- 3 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 3 February 2020 at London Central, before Employment Judge A M Snelson, the parties were represented by Mr J Mann for the claimant and Mr R Chaudhry for the respondents. The tribunal recorded that, by consent, the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered reinstatement on or before 28 February 2020. It also ordered back pay on reinstatement, calculated as all sums the claimant would have received but for the dismissal between 28 December 2017 and 28 February 2020, or earlier reinstatement, less any annual leave payment already received for accrued leave up to dismissal, income from any third party, and any relevant state benefit.
The tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to seek an enhancement under section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 in respect of the sum referred to in the back-pay paragraph. It directed disclosure of remedy documents by 13 March 2020, preparation of a bundle, exchange of witness statements, and listed any outstanding remedy issue and any costs or preparation time issue for hearing on 3 April 2020. No monetary total was fixed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By consent, the complaint of unfair dismissal was found well-founded. The judgment then made reinstatement and back-pay orders, with the quantum of back pay to be calculated later. | Upheld | — | — |
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.