Case 2206949/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Williams v Grosvenor Casinos Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2206949/2021
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone, heard Mr R Williams's claim against Grosvenor Casinos Ltd at London Central on 20-21 September 2022. It held that the claim of unfair dismissal under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded.
The judgment records a total award of £4,192.31. That sum was made up of a basic award of £3,387.24 and a compensatory award of £805.07. The tribunal stated that both elements were reduced by 25%, applying section 122(2) to the basic award and section 123(6) to the compensatory award.
No other claims or remedies are set out in the written judgment extract. The decision was signed by Employment Judge Gordon Walker on 21 September 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim of unfair dismissal under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. The award was reduced by 25% for both the basic award and the compensatory award under sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £4,192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,192
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,387
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £805
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.