Case 2400478/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Dickinson v Kiren Foods Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400478/2022
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shergill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Dickinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr I Dickinson was unfairly dismissed by Kiren Foods Limited. It awarded a basic award of £3,264 and a compensatory award of £11,890.42 after reduction. The tribunal also upheld the claimant's holiday pay claim, awarding £2,192 net, and his unpaid wages claim, awarding £1,570.25 net.
The tribunal further found that the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract, but made no separate award on that claim because the claimant had already been compensated for his losses in the unfair dismissal award. The written record states that the respondent was ordered to pay £16,278.86, that this figure was in addition to £2,637.81 already received, and that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied. It records a prescribed element of £9,252.61 for the period 18/10/21 to 22/09/22, with an excess of £7,026.25.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal awarded a basic award of £3,264 and a compensatory award of £11,890.42 after reduction. | Upheld | — | £15,154 |
| Holiday pay | Award stated to be net of tax and NI. | Upheld | — | £2,192 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award stated to be net of tax and NI. | Upheld | — | £1,570 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract, but made no separate award because the claimant had already been compensated for his losses in the unfair dismissal award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,279
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,264
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,890
- 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.