Case 3201552/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Hooper v Acorn Engineering Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201552/2023
- Decision date
- 22 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Comfort Representatives
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Hooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Hooper, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Acorn Engineering Group Ltd. The matter was heard at the East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 24 January 2024 before Employment Judge Comfort, with the claimant appearing in person and Mr Bradley (HR consultant) appearing for the respondent.
The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a basic award of £897.50 (calculated as £5,465.50 less a redundancy payment of £4,568.00 already received), a compensatory award of £7,763.80, and £400.00 for loss of statutory rights. The compensatory award reflected loss of earnings from 14 April 2023 to 11 September 2023 (21 weeks, £10,322.34) and two weeks' loss of bonus (£983.08), less mitigation earnings from temporary work at Close Brothers (£1,375.68) and HTS Group (£2,165.94).
The respondent was ordered to pay the total sum of £9,061.30 within 14 days of the order being sent to the parties. The judgment text provided does not set out the tribunal's reasoning for the finding of unfair dismissal beyond the operative orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Total award of £9,061.30 comprises basic award £897.50, compensatory award £7,763.80, and award for loss of statutory right £400.00. | Upheld | — | £9,061 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,061
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £898
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,764
- 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.