Case 3202489/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K McKee v Structural Membranes Specialists Limited — 2020

Case reference: 3202489/2019
Decision date: 4 March 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K McKee

Respondent

Structural Membranes Specialists Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that Mr K McKee’s unfair dismissal claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded and succeeded. It recorded a total unfair dismissal remedy of £2,038.13. The basic award was calculated at £4,200 under section 119 ERA 1996 and then reduced by 2/3 under section 122(2) ERA 1996 to £1,400.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Claim under section 94 ERA 1996 succeeded. Tribunal awarded a total unfair dismissal remedy of £2,038.13, comprising a basic award of £1,400 and a compensatory award of £638.13 after the stated reductions.	Upheld	—	£2,038
Other	Section 38 Employment Act 2002 claim for failing to provide notice of change of employment particulars succeeded. Tribunal said the appropriate award was £1,050, being two weeks' pay.	Upheld	—	£1,050

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,038; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £1,400; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £638; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.