Case 2415639/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Brunt v Core TV Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415639/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Brunt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Core TV Solutions Ltd was in breach of contract because it failed to pay employer pension contributions into Mr Ian Brunt's pension scheme from September 2019 to July 2020. Damages for that breach were assessed at £6,738.94.
The tribunal also held that Mr Brunt's unfair dismissal claim was well founded. It awarded compensation of £9,689.34, made up of a basic award of £6,456.00, a compensatory award of £2,833.34, and £400.00 for loss of statutory rights.
The tribunal further declared that the Employment Protection (Recoupment for Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 did not apply. The judgment was given after a remote video hearing, and reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to pay employer pension contributions into the claimant's pension scheme from September 2019 to July 2020. | Upheld | — | £6,739 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded and awarded compensation comprising a basic award of £6,456.00, a compensatory award of £2,833.34, and £400.00 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £9,689 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,428
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,456
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,833
- 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.