Case 2410285/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr L Perry v Upandunda Limited — 2021

Case reference: 2410285/2019
Decision date: 2 July 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Sharkett REPRESENTATION
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L Perry

Respondent

Upandunda Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the remedy hearing on 8 June 2021 before Employment Judge Sharkett, the tribunal made no basic or compensatory award for unfair dismissal. It said it would not be just and equitable to make a basic award and that the Polkey principle applied to the case to the extent of 100%, so no award was made on that head.

The claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay was dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant without notice or payment in lieu of notice.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. It awarded compensation of 4 weeks' pay at £480 per week, amounting to £1,920.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Remedy judgment only. The tribunal made no basic or compensatory award for unfair dismissal, stating that it would not be just and equitable to make a basic award and that the Polkey principle applied to the case to the extent of 100%.	Other	—	—
Breach of contract	The claimant's notice pay claim was not well founded. The tribunal found the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice or payment in lieu of notice.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars and awarded 4 weeks' pay at £480 per week, totalling £1,920.	Upheld	—	£1,920

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,920; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

2 references

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.