Mr E Baxter v JD Sports Fashion plc — 2023

Case reference: 2408116/2022
Decision date: 10 February 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Liz Ord
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr E Baxter

Respondent

JD Sports Fashion plc

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. The written judgment records the outcome and award but does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning, noting that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would only be provided if requested.

The respondent was ordered to pay compensation of £14,215.95. This comprised a basic award of £2,287.44 for six years' service and a compensatory award made up of loss of earnings, loss of pension contributions, and £400 for loss of statutory rights. The judgment also recorded recoupment figures under the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment records that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal is well founded. Written reasons were not included in the supplied judgment text; reasons were given orally at the hearing.	Upheld	—	£14,216

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £14,216; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £2,287; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £11,929; compensatory remedy recorded

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.