Case 2600415/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Aaron Serieux v Gallant Building Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600415/2022
- Decision date
- 27 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Aaron Serieux
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by video at London Central on 25, 26 and 27 July 2023 before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke, found that Mr Aaron Serieux was unfairly dismissed by Gallant Building Services Limited. It also found that the respondent failed to provide him with terms and conditions of employment compliant with s.1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered Gallant Building Services Limited to pay Mr Serieux a basic award of £920 in respect of the unfair dismissal and a further £1,840, described as four weeks' pay, in respect of the failure to provide compliant terms and conditions. The total sum ordered to the claimant was therefore £2,760. The judgment also records that Mr Serieux was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of £2,760.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award of £920. | Upheld | — | £920 |
| Other | The tribunal found the respondent failed to provide terms and conditions of employment compliant with s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered £1,840, described as four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,840 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,760
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £920
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,840
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.