Case 3304644/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Mr S Burrage (Director) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3304644/2020
- Decision date
- 9 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford on 9 June 2022, Employment Judge G D Davison heard the claim with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr S Burrage, director. The judgment records that the claim of unfair dismissal was well-founded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a total of £8,052, made up of a basic award of £680 and a compensatory award capped at £7,072. The judgment also records that £300 had already been paid into the tribunal as a deposit order, and that the deposit should be paid to the claimant under rule 39(5)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.
The written record states that the tribunal had resolved the specific allegation or argument against the paying party for substantially the reasons given in the deposit order. It further records that the recoupment provisions do not apply. The written judgment does not set out fuller reasons because those were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The written record states that the claim of unfair dismissal was well-founded. It also records that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, so the written record contains only the outcome and remedy rather than detailed factual findings. | Upheld | — | £8,052 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,052
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £680
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,072
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 39(5)(a) and (b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.