Case 2417076/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417076/2019
- Decision date
- 2 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim because the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It found that, had a fair procedure been followed, the respondent would still have dismissed the claimant fairly, and that dismissal would have taken place after a further period of employment ending on 27 September 2019.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment and was therefore not entitled to a basic award. It also found that the claimant obtained alternative employment on 2 September 2019, paid at the same level as his previous job, so he suffered no loss of earnings from the dismissal.
The only compensatory loss allowed was loss of statutory rights, for which the respondent was ordered to pay £350. The tribunal noted that, because there was no loss of earnings, the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It held that, had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would still have been dismissed fairly, with employment ending on 27 September 2019. | Upheld | — | £350 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £350
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £350
- 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.