Case 3300194/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Hickman v Vasco (UK) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3300194/2020
- Decision date
- 17 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Hickman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mark Hickman's unfair dismissal claim was found well-founded. The respondent, Vasco (UK) Ltd, did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The judgment records the finding only, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided in the written record.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £31,434.89. That sum comprised a basic award of £3,150; past loss of earnings from 28 September 2019 to 17 November 2020 of £17,930.85; future loss of earnings from 18 November 2020 to 31 March 2021 of £1,400; loss of pension contributions of £3,906.56; an ACAS uplift of 20% on £23,237.41, being £4,647.48; and £400 for loss of statutory rights. The judgment states that there was no reference to recoupable state benefits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent did not attend or represent at the hearing. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. | Upheld | — | £31,435 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,435
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,150
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £28,285
- 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.