Case 2405323/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T.J. Gaughan v Peter Scott Printers Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405323/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T.J. Gaughan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester, sitting on 17 September and 9 October 2019 before Employment Judge Ross, found that Mr T.J. Gaughan's claim for unfair dismissal against Peter Scott Printers Ltd was well founded and succeeded. The written judgment does not set out the underlying factual reasons, because the reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided in the record supplied.
The judgment records a remedy direction that the basic award and the compensatory award would each be reduced by 50% for contributory fault. No actual award figures are stated in the written decision, so the final monetary outcome cannot be extracted from the text supplied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The judgment also records that the basic award and compensatory award would be reduced by 50% for contributory fault, but no monetary figures are set out in the written decision. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.