Case 3303570/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303570/2019
- Decision date
- 15 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Appearances
- Venue
- Huntingdon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Huntingdon on 12 and 13 November 2019, Employment Judge Ord found that Mr L McVeigh was unfairly dismissed by Tesco Stores Limited and that he also suffered an unlawful deduction from wages in the sum of £169.22. The judgment records no discrimination claims.
On remedy for unfair dismissal, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £6,279.52 and an initial compensatory award of £9,257.23. The compensatory award was then reduced by 25% because of the claimant's blameworthy conduct before dismissal which contributed to his dismissal, and increased by 20% because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice. That produced a compensatory award of £8,331.50.
The total award was £14,780.24. The judgment also recorded a protected element of £8,331.50 and a protected period from 19 November 2018 to 3 January 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £6,279.52 and a compensatory award of £8,331.50 for this claim; the compensatory award was reduced by 25% for blameworthy conduct contributing to dismissal and then uplifted by 20% for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice. | Upheld | — | £14,611 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £169 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,780
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,280
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,332
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ACAS Code of Practice
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.