Case 2501624/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K Gatens v Riverside Beach Hotel Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501624/2023
- Decision date
- 27 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gowland Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. K Gatens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr. Gatens’ claim of unfair dismissal against Riverside Beach Hotel Ltd succeeded. The tribunal held the claim was well founded and awarded a total of £3,639.65.
The basic award was calculated at £3,377.88 and then reduced by 25% for contributory fault, producing an adjusted basic award of £2,533.41. The compensatory award included £1,061.54 for loss of earnings, £400 for loss of statutory rights, and £111.75 for loss of pension and Class 1 NIC.
The tribunal then applied a 25% Polkey deduction to reflect the likelihood of dismissal had correct procedures been followed, added 25% for the employer’s failure to follow statutory procedures, and deducted 25% for contributory fault. The resulting adjusted compensatory award was £1,106.24. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied, with a prescribed element of £796.16 for the period 29 April 2023 to 27 November 2023 and a balance of £2,843.50.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. The monetary award for unfair dismissal was £3,639.65, made up of a basic award reduced for 25% contributory fault and a compensatory award adjusted for a 25% Polkey deduction, a 25% addition for failure to follow statutory procedures, and a 25% deduction for contributory fault. | Upheld | — | £3,640 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,640
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,533
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,106
- 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.