Case 2300858/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Highland v Icore Media Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300858/2023
- Decision date
- 26 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Highland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Highland’s claims against Icore Media Limited were heard on 26 January 2024 before Employment Judge Anderson. The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were well-founded, and stated that the claimant had been unfairly and wrongfully dismissed.
The tribunal ordered a basic award of £3,426.00 on the unfair dismissal claim and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal of £2,520.92 on a gross basis. It also recorded that the recoupment regulations do not apply.
The tribunal further held that the claim for unlawful deduction from wages, described in the judgment as holiday pay, was well-founded and ordered payment of £882.32 gross. The claim for a redundancy payment was not well-founded and was dismissed. The awards ordered total £6,829.24.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and ordered a basic award of £3,426.00. The recoupment regulations do not apply. | Upheld | — | £3,426 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim well-founded and awarded damages calculated on a gross basis in the sum of £2,520.92. | Upheld | — | £2,521 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as an unlawful deduction from wages claim for holiday pay and orders £882.32 gross. | Upheld | — | £882 |
| Redundancy | The claim for a redundancy payment was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,829
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,426
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.