Case 2401750/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Gibbs v J Wilson — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401750/2024
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Malik
- Venue
- Manchester ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Gibbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Malik, sitting alone at Manchester on 30 and 31 January 2025, found that A Gibbs was constructively dismissed by J Wilson and that the dismissal was unfair. The judgment records no separate findings beyond that unfair dismissal conclusion, and the remedy was dealt with immediately after liability.
On remedy, the tribunal reduced the basic award because it was just and equitable to do so on account of the claimant's conduct. It also reduced any compensatory award by 25% because the claimant failed to engage with the ACAS code for grievances. After those reductions, the respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £1,035.28 and a compensatory award of £776.46.
The tribunal stated that the total payable was the aggregate gross sum of £1,811.74. The written record also notes the relevant decision day as 11 April 2025 and records the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively dismissed by the respondent and that the dismissal was unfair. The basic award was reduced on account of the claimant's conduct, and the compensatory award was reduced by 25% because the claimant failed to engage with the ACAS code for grievances. | Upheld | — | £1,812 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,812
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,035
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £776
- 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.