Case 2500033/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Harbottle v Mr M Kemp — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500033/2022
- Decision date
- 9 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Harbottle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Morris, sitting alone at Newcastle Hearing Centre by CVP, upheld Mr M Harbottle's complaint that he had been dismissed by Mr M Kemp and that the dismissal was unfair. The judgment states that the claimant terminated his employment in circumstances where he was entitled to do so without notice because of the respondent's conduct, bringing the case within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996, and that the resulting dismissal was unfair contrary to section 94 ERA 1996 by reference to section 98 ERA 1996.
The tribunal awarded total compensation of £5,529.67. That sum comprised a basic award of £1,463.55 and a compensatory award of £4,066.12. The compensatory award was calculated as £3,716.12 for loss of 20 weeks' net pay and £350 for loss of statutory rights.
The Recoupment Regulations applied. The tribunal recorded a monetary award of £5,529.67, a prescribed element of £3,716.12 attributable to 13 December 2021 to 2 May 2022, and an excess over the prescribed element of £1,813.55. The respondent did not appear, and the response had been dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated the claim as one under section 111 ERA 1996, finding that the claimant was dismissed because he terminated the contract in circumstances entitling him to do so without notice under section 95(1)(c), and that the dismissal was unfair under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £5,530 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,530
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,464
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,066
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 111 ERA 1996
- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- section 94 ERA 1996
- section 98 ERA 1996
- Recoupment Regulations
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.