Case 2411790/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Hardy v Andrew Nicholson and Paul Nicholson (a partnership trading as ACE Personnel) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411790/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Hardy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Manchester by video before Employment Judge Batten alone on 10 October 2024, considered the claimant Mrs M Hardy's complaint of unfair dismissal against Andrew Nicholson and Paul Nicholson, a partnership trading as ACE Personnel. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by A Nicholson, partner.
The Tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant compensation of £7,771.22, made up of a basic award of £5,019.30 and a compensatory award of £2,751.92.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out further factual findings or the basis on which the dismissal was held to be unfair. Written reasons would only be provided if requested by either party within 14 days of the written judgment being sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Compensation of £7,771.22 comprises a basic award of £5,019.30 and a compensatory award of £2,751.92. Judgment was given orally at the hearing; written reasons were not provided in this document. | Upheld | — | £7,771 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,771
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,019
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,752
- 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.