Case 2408441/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Gouthwaite v Viam Infrastructure Asset Management (VIAM) Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408441/2021
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Gouthwaite
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was continuously employed by the first respondent from September 2014 until his summary dismissal on 28 April 2021. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, relating to the claimant's use of a vehicle on the previous weekend.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had permission to use the vehicle, that using vehicles with permission was common practice, and that a colleague who was with him was not disciplined. It found the dismissal procedurally and substantively unfair and made a basic award, with no reduction because the claimant was not at fault.
The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim as not well-founded. It also allowed an amendment to include a wrongful dismissal claim, found that no gross misconduct took place on the evidence heard, and awarded statutory notice pay. No compensatory award for unfair dismissal was made because the claimant did not ask for one, in light of the later administration and likely redundancy around 1 June 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. No compensatory award was made because the claimant did not ask for one in the circumstances described by the tribunal. | Upheld | — | £4,896 |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claim for a redundancy payment was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal permitted an amendment to add a notice pay claim and awarded statutory notice pay gross. | Upheld | — | £3,880 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,776
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,896
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- 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.