Case 3201778/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Halil v Print Outlet Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201778/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Halil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public CVP hearing on 7 February 2024, Employment Judge Gordon Walker, sitting alone, ordered Print Outlet Limited to pay Mr C Halil £4,786.68 as compensation for unfair dismissal. The award comprised a basic award of £2,893.50 and a compensatory award of £1,646.24.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Awarded as compensation for unfair dismissal: basic award £2,893.50, compensatory award £1,646.24, plus a 15% ACAS uplift of £246.94 under s.207A(2) TULR(C)A 1992. The compensatory award was broken down into £500 loss of statutory rights, £1,070.44 loss of earnings, and £75.80 loss of pension. | Upheld | — | £4,787 |
| Other | Award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions of employment; ordered as two weeks' gross pay, subject to the statutory cap. | Upheld | — | £1,286 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,073
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,894
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,646
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.118(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.118(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A(2) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.