Case 2209268/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Middleditch v E & D Roofing Contractors Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2209268/2023
- Decision date
- 11 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Middleditch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Middleditch was unfairly dismissed by E & D Roofing Contractors Limited. It found the dismissal well-founded as a complaint, and also found that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. On that basis, the compensatory award was increased by 10% under s 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The remedy section records a basic award of £13,989.50 and a compensatory award of £20,624.02, made up of past losses of wages (£19,475), pension loss (£649) and loss of statutory rights (£500). The tribunal also applied an ACAS uplift of £3,461.35.
Separately, the tribunal found a breach of contract in relation to two weeks' notice pay and a further breach of contract in relation to unpaid congestion charges. It also found that the respondent breached its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars and said it was just and equitable to award four weeks' gross pay, recorded in the remedy section as £2,640.68. The remedy section separately lists £4,500 for congestion charges and states an overall total of £40,715.55, with permission for the respondent to seek reconsideration of the congestion charge amount by 11 January 2024 if it could produce evidence that the amount owed was different.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and increased the compensatory award by 10% under s 207A TULR(C)A 1992 because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code. The remedy section records a basic award of £13,989.50, a compensatory award of £20,624.02, and an ACAS uplift of £3,461.35. | Upheld | — | £38,075 |
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to two weeks' notice pay. The remedy section does not identify a separate amount for this item. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to the respondent's failure to pay congestion charges incurred by the claimant. The remedy section separately lists £4,500 for this item and the respondent was given permission to apply for reconsideration of that amount up to and including 11 January 2024 if it could produce evidence that the amount owed was different. | Upheld | — | £4,500 |
| Other | Breach of duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal said it was just and equitable to make an award equal to four weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £2,641 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £40,716
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,990
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £20,624
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.