Case 3201484/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Fisk v C&W Industrial Roofing Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201484/2020
- Decision date
- 28 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrett Representation
- Venue
- East London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James Fisk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr James Fisk was unfairly dismissed by C&W Industrial Roofing Limited. The judgment was given by Employment Judge Barrett following a hearing on 20 and 21 January 2021 at East London Employment Tribunal by Cloud Video Platform.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £3,011 in total. The award consisted of a nil basic award, a compensatory award of £2,509 described as one month’s net pay, and a 20% ACAS uplift of £502 applied to the compensatory award.
No other claims, liability findings, or separate remedy components are set out in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It ordered payment of £3,011, made up of a nil basic award, a compensatory award of £2,509 for one month’s net pay, and a 20% ACAS uplift of £502. | Upheld | — | £3,011 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,011
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,509
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.