Case 2601999/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gamble v Future Display and Shopfitting Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601999/2020
- Decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gamble
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP on 25 November 2021 before Employment Judge Victoria Butler sitting alone. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 and found that Mr D Gamble had been unfairly dismissed by Future Display and Shopfitting Limited (in voluntary liquidation).
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal ordered payment of £550 for loss of statutory rights and a compensatory award of £30,025, making £30,575 in total. The judgment does not set out further reasoning in the extracted text, but it records the liability finding and the remedy awarded.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £2,425 net. Taking both orders together, the total sum awarded in the judgment was £33,000.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £30,575 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described this as a failure to pay the Claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered a net sum of £2,425; the exact legal label was not stated in the text. | Upheld | — | £2,425 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £33,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £30,025
- 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.