Case 2501055/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kenneth Mould v Go North East Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501055/2020
- Decision date
- 10 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Speker OBE
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kenneth Mould
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Speker OBE DL at Newcastle Hearing Centre on 1 September 2020. The respondent filed no appearance or response and did not attend the hearing. On that basis, the tribunal adjudged that the claim of unfair dismissal was established and awarded the claimant a basic award of £4,535.86.
The tribunal also found that the claim of disability discrimination was successful. It did not assess remedy for that claim at the liability hearing, and stated that remedies would be considered at a later remedy hearing.
As to the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal recorded that compensation in relation to any compensatory award was to be dealt with at the remedy hearing. No further detail on the factual basis for liability, the statutory test applied, or any split between heads of loss was included in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that the claim of unfair dismissal was established and ordered a basic award of £4,535.86. Compensation for any compensatory award was referred to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | £4,536 |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal stated that the claim of disability discrimination was successful. Remedies were deferred to the later remedy hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,536
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,536
- 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.