Case 3204995/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Mukulu of Counsel For the v Mr Peter Thomas – Managing Director Interpreter: Ms S Muqtadir (Bengali – Sylheti Dialect) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3204995/2022
- Decision date
- 10 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Mukulu of Counsel For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the respondent's name to Prescott-Thomas Limited and found the complaint of unfair dismissal well-founded. It ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £4,463 forthwith, made up of a basic award of £479.25 and a compensatory award of £3,983.75.
The tribunal also found the complaint of wrongful dismissal well-founded, but it made no separate award of compensation for that claim because any further award would have amounted to double recovery. The compensatory award for unfair dismissal was increased by 25% pursuant to section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal recorded that the Employment Tribunals (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply to the award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded £4,463 compensation for unfair dismissal, comprising a basic award of £479.25 and a compensatory award of £3,983.75. The compensatory award was increased by 25% pursuant to section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Upheld | — | £4,463 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal complaint well-founded but made no separate compensation award, saying any award would amount to double recovery. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,463
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £479
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,984
- 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.