Case 2210643/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Simone Rigoni v Fonmigo Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2210643/2022
- Decision date
- 30 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Simone Rigoni
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent conceded that it unfairly dismissed Mr Simone Rigoni, and the tribunal therefore entered judgment for unfair dismissal. No other claim types were determined in the written judgment.
The remedy schedule awarded a basic award of £5,710, calculated as 1 week x 10 years' service x £571. The compensatory award was broken down into loss of earnings from 30 July 2022 to the date of hearing, statutory rights, less pay in lieu of notice and sums earned in mitigation, producing loss to date of hearing of £28,223.66, followed by future loss of earnings of £61,349.84 after deducting future mitigation. The tribunal recorded no uplift for breach of the ACAS Code, and the grand total before cap was £95,283.50.
The tribunal then applied the statutory cap under s.124(1ZA) ERA. It noted the claimant's monthly gross pay of £6,666.67, converted that to a weekly gross pay of £1,538.46, and held that 52 times that figure produced a capped award of £79,999.92, which was the sum ordered to be paid.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Respondent conceded unfair dismissal. The remedy schedule calculated a grand total of £95,283.50, but the tribunal applied the statutory cap under s.124(1ZA) ERA and ordered payment of £79,999.92. | Upheld | — | £80,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £80,000
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,710
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £89,574
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.124(1ZA) ERA
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.