Case 2400183/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Harris v Automatic Transmissions Ltd HELD AT: Manchester (in person) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400183/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mellor REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Harris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Mellor, sitting at Manchester on 20 September 2024, found that the claimant Mr Mark Harris was unfairly dismissed by the respondent Automatic Transmissions Ltd. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent was represented by Mr Grant Lawrence, accompanied by Mr James Lawrence.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £6,352, comprising a basic award of £5,787 plus one week's loss of earnings by way of compensation calculated as £565 net. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
A notice under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 was issued, recording the relevant decision day as 24 September 2024, the calculation day as 25 September 2024, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Award comprises £5,787 basic award and £565 net (one week's loss of earnings by way of compensation). | Upheld | — | £6,352 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,352
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,787
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £565
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.