Case 2401419/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Dodgson v Parking Eye Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401419/2020
- Decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Dodgson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr M Dodgson’s complaint of unfair dismissal as not well-founded. It upheld his complaint of wrongful dismissal, so the only successful claim was the contractual dismissal claim rather than the unfair dismissal claim.
For the wrongful dismissal claim, the tribunal ordered Parking Eye Ltd to pay the claimant the net sum of £5,464.44. The judgment states that this figure consisted of £455.37 net per week for 12 weeks, and that the respondent would be responsible for all legal obligations on the payment.
The written record does not set out detailed reasons beyond the outcomes and remedy, and it does not record any separate split between heads of loss. No discrimination, whistleblowing, or other claims appear in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the net sum of £5,464.44, stated to consist of £455.37 net per week for 12 weeks. The respondent was said to be responsible for all legal obligations on the payment. | Upheld | — | £5,464 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,464
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.