Case 2415910/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Parry-Williams v North West Logistics Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415910/2020
- Decision date
- 7 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms Dowling, Mr Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Parry-Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis remedy judgment followed the tribunal's reserved liability judgment of 11 July 2022. The tribunal had found that Mr P Parry-Williams was unfairly dismissed and had reduced any compensatory award by 80% under section 123(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because it accepted there was a significant prospect that he would have been dismissed had a fair process been followed. The tribunal also recorded that it had made a declaration that an unlawful deduction from wages had been made in respect of unpaid salary and commission, but that the outstanding sum had already been paid by the time the reserved judgment was issued.
For remedy, the tribunal considered the claimant's evidence and the parties' schedules of loss. It found that he was dismissed on 11 August 2020, obtained alternative employment with UKI Express on 1 March 2021 on a salary of £35,000 plus a £350 monthly car allowance, and that that employment ended in September 2021. It then recorded a further period of unemployment before part-time employment with SSO Logistics Limited began on 7 February 2022 at £21,000 for 27 hours per week. The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that the claimant's new employment in March 2021 broke the chain of causation because he accepted it as apparently permanent, and it therefore did not award compensation beyond 1 March 2021. It also referred to Wardle v Credit Suisse and Investment [2011] EWCA Civ 545 in rejecting any significant continuing future loss.
The tribunal calculated immediate loss by reference to 28.9 weeks at a net weekly pay figure of £536.26, less a payment in lieu of notice, and added car benefits and employer pension contributions to reach £18,028.82 before reduction. After applying the 80% reduction from the liability judgment, the compensatory award was £3,605.76. It then added £500 for loss of statutory rights, producing a total compensation figure of £4,105.76. The tribunal also applied the recoupment provisions for the prescribed period ending on 1 March 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reserved liability judgment had already found the dismissal unfair and reduced compensatory loss by 80% under s.123(1) ERA 1996 because there was a significant prospect that the claimant would have been dismissed for redundancy if a fair process had been followed. In remedy, the tribunal said the basic award was not payable because of the redundancy payment already made, awarded a compensatory award of £3,605.76 after the 80% reduction, and added £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £4,106 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said a declaration had been made that unlawful deductions from wages had occurred in respect of unpaid salary and commission, but the outstanding sum had been paid by the time the reserved judgment on liability was issued, so it formed no part of the remedy decision. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,106
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,606
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123(1) ERA 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996
- Wardle v Credit Suisse and Investment [2011] EWCA Civ 545
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.