Case 2207418/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Quainoo v WGC Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207418/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grewal Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Quainoo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the complaint of breach of contract, described in the judgment as wrongful dismissal, was well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £7,392. It also held that the holiday pay claim was well-founded and awarded £1,713.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and awarded compensation of £37,439. The stated components were a £16,141 basic award, a £16,080 compensatory award, a £4,020 ACAS uplift for failure to follow disciplinary procedure, and a £1,198 two weeks' pay increase for breach of section 4(1) ERA 1996.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the specified time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Judgment describes this as a complaint of breach of contract (wrongful dismissal). | Upheld | — | £7,392 |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,713 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal compensation comprises a basic award, compensatory award, ACAS uplift and a two weeks' pay increase for breach of section 4(1) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £37,439 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £46,544
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £16,141
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £16,080
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 4(1) ERA 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.