Case 3200014/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Porebski v Iceni Windows Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200014/2021
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Porebski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Porebski, brought claims against Iceni Windows Limited. The tribunal recorded that the holiday pay claim had been paid, and that claim was therefore dismissed on withdrawal.
The tribunal found that Mr Porebski was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. It ordered the respondent to pay £2,315.89 in respect of that claim, made up of a basic award of £1,990.00 and a compensatory award of £325.89.
The claimant’s wrongful dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. No discrimination claims were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the holiday pay claim had been paid and was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered £2,315.89, made up of a basic award of £1,990.00 and a compensatory award of £325.89. | Upheld | — | £2,316 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,316
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,990
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £326
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.