Case 2502558/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Arek Tomalski v Seasons Holidays plc and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502558/2019
- Decision date
- 12 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Arek Tomalski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Arek Tomalski’s unfair dismissal claim against Seasons Holidays PLC was not well founded and dismissed it. The same claim against Slaley Hall Lodges Limited succeeded under s.98 ERA. The extracted judgment records the outcomes but does not set out detailed liability reasoning beyond those dispositive findings.
On remedy, the Second Respondent was ordered to pay £14,713.72. That sum comprised a basic award of £5,863.04, a compensatory award of £500 for loss of statutory rights, and £8,350.68 for loss of earnings calculated on 26 weeks at £321.18 per week. The tribunal stated that the recoupment regulations did not apply because the claimant had not received relevant benefits at any time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim against the First Respondent, Seasons Holidays PLC, under s.98 ERA was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim against the Second Respondent, Slaley Hall Lodges Limited, under s.98 ERA succeeded; the tribunal awarded total compensation of £14,713.72. | Upheld | — | £14,714 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,714
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,863
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,851
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98 ERA
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.