Case 3304132/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Tremlett v Ward-Hendry Limited (In administration) — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304132/2018
- Decision date
- 4 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Tremlett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Tremlett, brought claims of unfair dismissal and breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 against Ward-Hendry Limited (in administration). The hearing took place at Reading on 17 September 2019 before Employment Judge Hawksworth, with the claimant appearing in person and no attendance or representation for the respondent.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and succeeded. It awarded a basic award of £5,868 and a compensatory award of £400 in respect of that claim.
The tribunal also held that the section 188 complaint was well-founded and succeeded. It considered it just and equitable to make an award for a protected period of 90 days and awarded a protective award of £9,876. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no written reasons were issued with the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded and awarded a basic award of £5,868 plus a compensatory award of £400. | Upheld | — | £6,268 |
| Trade union | The tribunal found the complaint of breach of section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded and made a protective award for a protected period of 90 days. | Upheld | — | £9,876 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,144
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,868
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £400
- 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.