Case 2303255/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v On the Mark Consultancy Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303255/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn Ms R Benson v On the Mark Consultancy Ltd, heard by CVP on 28 October 2020 before Employment Judge L Burge, the tribunal held that the claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. It also held that the wrongful dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it.
On remedy, the tribunal reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 80% for contributory fault. It then applied a 10% uplift to the compensatory award for failure to follow the ACAS Code and reduced the compensatory award by 75% to reflect the chance of a fair dismissal. The claimant was awarded £994.52 in total, described as a £315 basic award and compensatory items of £612.69 for loss of wages to the hearing date and £66.82 for future losses and loss of statutory rights; the printed component figures do not exactly add up to the stated total.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. It recorded a total award of £994.52, made up of a basic award of £315.00 and compensatory items of £612.69 for loss of wages to the hearing date and £66.82 for future losses and loss of statutory rights; the printed components do not exactly add up to the stated total. | Upheld | — | £995 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found this claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £995
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £315
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £680
- 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.