Case 2305596/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person, with Polish Interpreter, Mr R Konop For the v Mr T Hussain, Litigation Consultant — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305596/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person, with Polish Interpreter, Mr R Konop For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. It awarded four weeks' pay at £308 per week as compensation for unfair dismissal, making £1,232 on that head.
The tribunal also found that the statement of terms and conditions of employment issued at the start of the claimant's employment did not comply with s1 Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, it awarded two weeks' pay under s38 Employment Act 2002, adding £616 to the award.
The total amount payable was therefore £1,848, payable forthwith.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded four weeks' pay at £308 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,232 |
| Other | The tribunal found the statement of terms and conditions issued at the start of employment did not comply with s1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded two weeks' pay under s38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £616 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,848
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,232
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s38 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.