Case 2420654/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Eaton v Johnsons Cars Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2420654/2020
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Panel members
- Ms Byrne, Ms J Williams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Eaton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that Mr M Eaton was unfairly dismissed by Johnsons Cars Limited. It ordered compensation for loss of earnings of £10,436.80, loss of pension contributions of £1,504, and £500 for loss of statutory rights, all subject to lawful deductions of tax and national insurance. The judgment records that the basic award had been subsumed by the statutory redundancy payment, so no separate basic award was made in the compensation order.
The tribunal also dismissed Mr Eaton's age discrimination claims. It found that he was not discriminated against on grounds of age and dismissed the claims brought under sections 13 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. It ordered compensation for £10,436.80 loss of earnings, £1,504 loss of pension contributions, and £500 for loss of statutory rights, all subject to lawful deductions of tax and national insurance. The judgment states that the basic award had been subsumed by the statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £12,441 |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not discriminated against on grounds of age and dismissed the age discrimination claims brought under sections 13 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,441
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £12,441
- 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.