Case 2301197/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Aubert v Baggage Factory Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301197/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Aubert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Batten, sitting alone at London South on 22 February 2021, found that Mr F Aubert's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. The tribunal recorded that the dismissal was for asserting a statutory right and awarded compensation of £10,642.63, made up of £8,014.94 for losses, a 25% uplift of £2,003.73 for failure to apply the ACAS code of practice, and £623.96 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
The judgment also records that, by consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £92.93 for unpaid accrued holiday entitlement due at the termination of employment. No other claims, findings, or remedies are recorded in the extract. The total amount ordered is £10,735.56.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and recorded that the dismissal was for asserting a statutory right. The award comprised £8,014.94 for losses, a 25% uplift of £2,003.73 for failure to apply the ACAS code of practice, and £623.96 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £10,643 |
| Holiday pay | By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £92.93 for unpaid accrued holiday entitlement due at termination of employment. | Settled | — | £93 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,736
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £10,643
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS code of practice
- section 38 of the Employment Act 2002
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.