Case 2602227/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Alter Rock Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602227/2019
- Decision date
- 11 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Clark VARIED
- Venue
- In Chambers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an application for reconsideration of the remedy judgment in the claimant's unfair dismissal case. On 15 January 2021 Employment Judge R Clark considered the respondent's two objections under rules 70-72 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The respondent said the claimant had continued to receive four further pay dates after dismissal on 14 June 2019, totalling net payments of #950.58, so the original loss calculation needed revision. The tribunal accepted that point should be revisited in the interests of justice and varied the remedy judgment accordingly.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment on reconsideration varied the remedy only; the unfair dismissal finding remained in place. | Upheld | — | £2,538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,538
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,938
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £600
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- rules 70-72, Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- interests of justice
- rule 72(1) reasonable prospects
- s.122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.