Case 2500857/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Johnson v JFS & Associates Limited (In Administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500857/2016
- Decision date
- 29 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment by consent after the stay on the proceedings was lifted by consent from the Respondent's liquidators and by consent of the parties. The Respondent was JFS & Associates Limited (In Administration), and the judgment was dated 29 October 2019.
The tribunal recorded that the Claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were upheld. No factual reasons were set out in the short consent judgment, and no contested findings or legal analysis were recorded beyond the parties' agreement to the form of judgment.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,934 for the unfair dismissal claim and £1,956 in respect of four weeks' statutory notice pay for the wrongful dismissal claim. The judgment further recorded that both sums were to rank as an unsecured claim in the Respondent's liquidation and not as an expense in liquidation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment by consent. The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim and awarded a basic award of £2,934. | Upheld | — | £2,934 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Judgment by consent. The tribunal upheld the wrongful dismissal claim and awarded £1,956 in respect of 4 weeks' statutory notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,956 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,890
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,934
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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.