Case 2413301/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Potter v Ideal 365 Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2413301/2020
- Decision date
- 14 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr L Potter
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Potter's claim of unfair dismissal against Ideal 365 Limited and Ideal Workwear 365 Limited succeeded. The tribunal recorded that it was just and equitable to award a compensatory award of £0 under s.123(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and just and equitable to reduce the basic award to £0 under s.122(2) of the same Act.
The separate claim that the failure to pay a 2019-2020 bonus was an unlawful deduction from wages and/or a breach of contract failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It recorded that it was just and equitable to award a compensatory award of £0 under s.123(1) ERA 1996 and to reduce the basic award to £0 under s.122(2) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This was part of the claim about non-payment of the 2019-2020 bonus. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This was part of the claim about non-payment of the 2019-2020 bonus. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.