Case 2300571/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Opoku v Associated Continuity Teams Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300571/2019
- Decision date
- 20 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Opoku
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr J Opoku was unfairly dismissed by Associated Continuity Teams Ltd. The hearing was before Employment Judge Nash sitting alone at Croydon by cloud video platform on 19 and 20 January 2021.
On remedy, the tribunal reduced the basic award by 75% under s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and reduced the compensatory award by 100% under s.123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record does not set out a separate compensatory figure after that reduction.
The judgment records that, by consent, 25% of the basic award was £864.94. The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay that sum to the claimant. No other remedy components are recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It reduced the basic award by 75% under s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and reduced the compensatory award by 100% under s.123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that, by consent, 25% of the basic award was £864.94, which was the sum ordered to be paid. | Upheld | — | £865 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £865
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £865
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.