Case 2305014/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gilbert v Department for Transport — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305014/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gilbert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing the earlier liability decision that the Department for Transport unfairly dismissed Mr D Gilbert, Employment Judge Corrigan, sitting alone, issued this remedy judgment on 8 January 2026. The tribunal awarded compensation of £78,339.38 in total.
The award comprised a basic award of £13,824.50 and a compensatory award of £64,514.88. The compensatory award included £39,403.63 for loss of earnings, £13,516.73 for loss of pension, and £500 for loss of statutory rights, producing a subtotal of £53,420.36. The tribunal then applied a 10% uplift of £5,342.04 for breach of the ACAS Code of Practice, bringing the subtotal to £58,762.40, and grossed up sums over £30,000 by £5,752.48 to reach the final compensatory award.
The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were said to apply. The prescribed element was £39,403.63 for the period 10 January 2024 to 9 January 2025, and the difference between the total monetary award and the prescribed element was £38,935.75. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy judgment following the prior finding that the respondent unfairly dismissed the claimant. Total monetary award for the unfair dismissal claim was £78,339.38, made up of a basic award of £13,824.50 and a compensatory award of £64,514.88. | Upheld | — | £78,339 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £78,339
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,825
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £64,515
- 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.