Case 2602893/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Gordon v Burton Sameday Couriers Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602893/2020
- Decision date
- 25 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flint Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Gordon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by Employment Judge Flint in Nottingham on 25 March 2021. The claimant, Mr M Gordon, was represented by his sister, Ms Gordon, and the respondent was represented by Mr M Harcombe, Director. The written record notes that reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal found that the claim of unfair dismissal was well founded. It awarded Mr Gordon £3,722.67 net in compensation as the remedy for that claim. The written record does not set out a split between basic and compensatory award, and it does not record any separate interest calculation.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for failure to pay a redundancy payment. No further reasoning is included in the written record beyond the outcome. No discrimination, whistleblowing, or other additional claims are recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and awarded the claimant £3,722.67 net in compensation. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Upheld | — | £3,723 |
| Redundancy | The claim for failure to pay a redundancy payment was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,723
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,723
- 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.