Case 2207706/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Davis v And Excelredstone Converged Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207706/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kurrein Statement
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Davis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting remotely on 20 and 21 January 2022 before Employment Judge Kurrein, recorded that Mr C Davis had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by Excelredstone Converged Solutions Ltd. The written record sets out the formal outcome and remedy; it also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no separate written reasons are included in the extract.
The respondent was ordered to pay three weeks' net wages of £1,130.67 for breach of contract. In respect of unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant had contributed to the dismissal to the extent of 50% and awarded a basic award of £1,125.00 and a compensatory award of £6,611.80. The recoupment regulations were said to apply; the total award was £8,867.47, the prescribed sum was £6,611.80, and the amount above the prescribed sum was £2,255.67.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 50% and awarded a basic award of £1,125.00 and a compensatory award of £6,611.80. | Upheld | — | £7,737 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal ordered payment of three weeks' net wages; the judgment also states that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. | Upheld | — | £1,131 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,867
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,125
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,612
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.