Case 2402562/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Potts v Larton Livery Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402562/2022
- Decision date
- 16 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Potts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anderson, sitting alone at Manchester via CVP, found that Mr G Potts’s claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were well-founded. The judgment states that he was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by Larton Livery Limited.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered a basic award of £7,344.00 and a compensatory award of £8,282.59 for the unfair dismissal claim, and damages of £6,325.78 for wrongful dismissal. The annex states that the recoupment provisions apply, with a prescribed period of 7 March 2022 to 20 June 2022 and a prescribed amount of £8,282.59.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and ordered a basic award of £7,344.00 plus a compensatory award of £8,282.59. | Upheld | — | £15,627 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim well-founded and ordered damages of £6,325.78. | Upheld | — | £6,326 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,952
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,344
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,283
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.