Case 2501548/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Smith v St Cuthberts House — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501548/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing by CVP on 31 January 2022, Employment Judge Beever sat alone and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal found that Mr W Smith's claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £11,455.18 in compensation for unfair dismissal. That sum comprised a basic award of £1,764, a compensatory award of £8,810.18, and a 10% uplift of £881 for failure to comply with the ACAS Code in respect of a failure to allow an appeal.
The compensatory award was made up of £300 for loss of statutory rights, £8,230.59 for loss of basic salary to the date of the hearing, and £279.59 for loss of pension benefit to the date of the hearing. The tribunal also declared a prescribed period of 23 June 2021 to 31 January 2022, a prescribed amount of £2,308.42, and a balance of £6,501.76 payable to the claimant after recoupment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The award included a 10% uplift of £881 for failure to comply with the ACAS Code in respect of a failure to allow an appeal. | Upheld | — | £11,455 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,455
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,764
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,810
- 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.