Case 2600329/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Wright v Discount Electrics Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600329/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr L Wright was unfairly dismissed by Discount Electrics Ltd. It made a basic award of £1,596.76 and a compensatory award of £13,829.92, producing £15,426.68 on the unfair dismissal claim itself.
The compensatory award was said to be made up of £9,252.90 for immediate loss, £5,712.98 for future loss, and £3,457.48 for a 25% ACAS uplift for unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice. The judgment records that the statutory cap under s124(1ZA)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 was then applied to the compensatory award, using 52 weeks' gross pay at £265.96, giving the capped figure of £13,829.92.
In addition to the unfair dismissal award, the tribunal ordered compensation of £450.00 for loss of statutory rights, £878.92 in lieu of notice for four weeks' pay, £934.96 for loss of pension contributions, and £327.08 for loss of national insurance contributions. The total ordered to be paid was £18,017.64.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £15,427 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £18,018
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,597
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £13,830
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s124(1ZA)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code of Practice uplift
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.