Case 2602671/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C M Thompson v Wayfair (UK ) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602671/2023
- Decision date
- 6 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C M Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the Midlands East Employment Tribunals on 2 November 2023. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time and Employment Judge M Butler made a determination under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 (default judgment).
The Tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed by Wayfair (UK) Limited and ordered a basic award of £2,893.50 and a compensatory award of £9,469.55, together with £1,200 for loss of pension contributions, £384 for loss of private medical care premiums and £540 for loss of private mobile phone costs.
The total amount payable was £14,937.05. (The compensatory award figure in the remedies block aggregates the £9,469.55 compensatory award with the loss-of-benefit components, since the schema has no separate field for those.)
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Default judgment under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. | Upheld | — | £14,937 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,937
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,894
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,594
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.