Case 3302843/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Romans (counsel) For the v Mr Dave Roberts (HR representative) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302843/2020
- Decision date
- 26 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Romans (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Cambridge, before Employment Judge King, heard the claim on 28 and 29 June 2021. In its written judgment, it recorded that Mr Richard Brown's claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal succeeded against Adara Group Ltd.
The judgment awarded the Claimant a single sum of £7,700.40. It does not set out any separate breakdown between the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims, and it does not record separate heads of loss, interest, or other remedy components in the written decision provided.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No further findings or legal analysis are set out in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The award was made as a single global sum, so no claim-specific breakdown is given. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The award was made as a single global sum, so no claim-specific breakdown is given. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,700
- across all upheld claims
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.