Case 2214829/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Ali v Gary Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214829/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt London Central on 15-17 May 2024, Employment Judge A M Snelson heard the Claimant in person and the Respondent represented by Mr G Phillips, Managing Director. The Tribunal held that Mr I Ali's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. It awarded a basic award of £1,929.00 and a compensatory award of £9,303.59, comprising £7,442.87 for monetary loss and a 25% ACAS uplift of £1,860.72.
The Tribunal also held that the Claimant's complaint of wrongful dismissal was well-founded. It ordered the Respondent to pay compensation for that claim in the agreed sum of £2,359.38. The judgment records a total award of £13,591.97.
The Tribunal noted that income tax and national insurance contributions may be payable in respect of the awards under the monetary loss element of the compensatory award and the wrongful dismissal award, and that net payment with appropriate deductions would discharge the judgment if deductions and accounting were made to the proper authorities.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £1,929.00 plus compensatory award of £9,303.59, made up of £7,442.87 monetary loss and a 25% ACAS uplift of £1,860.72. | Upheld | — | £11,233 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Compensation was awarded in the agreed sum of £2,359.38. | Upheld | — | £2,359 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,592
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,929
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,304
- 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.