Case 2308724/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Watkins v P&O Ferries Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2308724/2020
- Decision date
- 4 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Paul Watkins
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningPaul Watkins brought proceedings against P&O Ferries (Jersey) Ltd and P&O Ferries Ltd. The case was heard at London South on 25 and 26 May 2022 before Employment Judge Reed. The judgment records that the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim against the First Respondent under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The only monetary award recorded in the judgment was a compensatory award of £186.76 under section 123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No basic award, interest, or other heads of loss are recorded in the written judgment.
The reasons were given orally at the hearing and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days. The extracted judgment therefore records the outcomes and remedy, but does not set out further factual findings or legal reasoning beyond the statutory provisions cited.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim against the First Respondent under s94 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded; a compensatory award of £186.76 was made under s123 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £187 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £187
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £187
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 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.