Case 2300091/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Newing v Starcross Trading Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2300091/2026
- Decision date
- 24 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Newing
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a Rule 22 judgment issued after no response was received from Starcross Trading Limited, the tribunal found Mr C Newing's unfair dismissal claim well founded and held that it succeeded.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £646.15 and a compensatory award of £33,599.88, the latter capped at 52 weeks' pay. It also awarded £1,292.30, representing two weeks' pay under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The combined award was £35,538.33, and the judgment stated that Mr Newing was responsible for any tax on the payment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £646.15 and a compensatory award of £33,599.88, capped at 52 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £34,246 |
| Other | Two weeks' pay was awarded under section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. | Upheld | — | £1,292 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,538
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £646
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £33,600
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.