Case 3201479/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Marley v Goldamark Master Craftsmen Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201479/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Marley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 17 January 2020, Employment Judge McLaren found that Mr E Marley was unfairly dismissed by Goldamark Master Craftsmen Limited. The judgment states that there was no fair reason for dismissal and that the procedure followed was also unfair.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £754.81 based on the claimant's age and length of service. It also awarded compensation for the period from 15 April to 29 May 2019 in the amount of £1,653.92, which was uplifted by 25% for failure to follow the ACAS Code, producing a compensatory total of £2,067.40.
In addition, the tribunal made a further award of £590 described as two weeks' net pay for failure to be accompanied by a colleague. The extracted text does not identify the statutory basis for that award, but it formed part of the overall total award of £3,412.21.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found there was no fair reason for dismissal and that the procedure followed was unfair. The monetary figure recorded for this claim includes a 25% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £2,067 |
| Other | The judgment awards two weeks' net pay for failure to be accompanied by a colleague, but the extracted text does not specify the statutory basis for that award. | Upheld | — | £590 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,412
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £755
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,067
- 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.