Case 2306831/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lyward v Rother Valley Press — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306831/2023
- Decision date
- 28 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdoch Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lyward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr Lyward's claim of constructive unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded a basic award of £11,890, calculated by reference to gross weekly pay of £410, a 29 multiplier, the claimant's age of 59, and 26 years' service. It also awarded a compensatory award of £21,320. The tribunal said this figure reflected £500 for loss of statutory rights plus £27,156 for loss of earnings from 19 December 2023 to 28 May 2025, less two weeks' notice pay, producing £27,656 before application of the statutory cap of 52 weeks' gross pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996. Award comprised a basic award of £11,890 and a compensatory award of £21,320. | Upheld | — | £33,210 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deductions from pay for the period 3 August 2023 to 19 December 2023. | Upheld | — | £8,077 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for two weeks' notice pay. | Upheld | — | £820 |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised pay statements contrary to section 8(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal recorded this complaint as dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £43,524
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £11,890
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £21,320
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- Part II Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 8(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.