Case 2300125/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Russell Luthwaite v Betc Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300125/2020
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Russell Luthwaite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Russell Luthwaite was awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £3,125. The tribunal also found that he had been unfairly dismissed. In the unfair dismissal claim, the written record states that the basic award was nil because it was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment, and the compensatory award was assessed at £15,822.
The tribunal further found that Mr Luthwaite had been dismissed in breach of contract and awarded notice pay of £3,240. It recorded that the recoupment provisions did not apply. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and are not set out in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment awarded. | Upheld | — | £3,125 |
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award was nil because it was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment; compensatory award assessed at £15,822. | Upheld | — | £15,822 |
| Breach of contract | Awarded notice pay. | Upheld | — | £3,240 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £22,187
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £15,822
- 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.