Case 2501908/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Douglas v UK Direct Business Solutions Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2501908/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Douglas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing in Newcastle on 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 September and 8 and 13 November 2024, Employment Judge Sweeney heard claims brought by Mr D Douglas against UK Direct Business Solutions Ltd. The written judgment records that the claim for unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded, and that the claim for wrongful dismissal was also well-founded and succeeded.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal recorded two percentage reductions. It said the compensatory award was reduced by 30% to reflect the reason stated in the judgment, and that the Claimant had contributed towards his own dismissal so both the basic and compensatory awards were reduced by 25%. The extracted written decision does not set out the final monetary figures.
The wrongful dismissal claim was upheld. The short written record does not give separate reasons beyond the findings and reductions noted above, and it does not identify any discrimination, whistleblowing, or other additional claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well-founded and said the compensatory award would be reduced by 30% to reflect the reason stated in the judgment. It also reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 25% for contribution. No final monetary figure is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claim well-founded and said it succeeded. No separate monetary figure is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
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.