Case 3304188/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Cyril Gregory v Petro Trace Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304188/2022
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr. J. Appleton, Mr. K. Rose
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Cyril Gregory
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, subjected to direct age discrimination by being singled out for dismissal and dismissed, subjected to victimisation, and that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing him without notice. The complaint of direct race discrimination was dismissed as not well founded, and the claim for a redundancy payment under s.135 ERA was dismissed.
The award for the successful complaints was a combined sum rather than a claim-by-claim allocation. It comprised a basic award of £3,264, financial loss of £147,853, injury to feelings of £20,000, and a 25% ACAS uplift of £42,779.25, giving £213,896.25 before interest.
The parties agreed interest of £4,974.21 on past loss and £2,503.01 on injury to feelings, producing a total of £221,373.47 with interest. They also agreed a tax gross-up of £118,839.33, and the total payable by the respondent was £340,212.80.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The award was included in a combined sum rather than apportioned by claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal held that the respondent subjected the claimant to direct age discrimination by singling him out for dismissal and dismissing him. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct race discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal found that the respondent subjected the claimant to victimisation. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without notice. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim for a redundancy payment pursuant to s.135 ERA was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £340,213
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,264
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £190,632
- 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.
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.