Case 2302995/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kwperera, Legal Representative For the v Mr P Bradley, HR consultant — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302995/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kwperera, Legal Representative For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South on 5 February 2020 before Employment Judge Balogun. The respondent had filed no response and was only permitted to participate in respect of remedy. The judgment was entered under Rule 21.
The tribunal held that the claim of unfair dismissal succeeded and awarded the claimant £21,863.10. That sum included a 10% uplift pursuant to section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment does not break that award down into basic and compensatory components.
The tribunal also held that the claim of wrongful dismissal succeeded and awarded three months' notice pay of £6,285. The claim for holiday pay failed because no evidence was presented in support of it. The respondent was ordered to pay £28,148.10 in total, and the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded £21,863.10, including a 10% uplift pursuant to section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment does not split that award into basic and compensatory components. | Upheld | — | £21,863 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal awarded three months' notice pay of £6,285. | Upheld | — | £6,285 |
| Holiday pay | The claim failed because no evidence was presented in support of it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,148
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21
- section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.