Case 3305461/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Newman v EmpathyBroker Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305461/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Magee Representation
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Newman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Newman brought a claim for unfair dismissal against EmpathyBroker Limited. The case was heard at Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal by Employment Judge M Magee on 28 and 29 April 2025, with the judgment dated 29 May 2025.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The written record does not set out the tribunal's reasons, stating instead that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that by agreement between the parties the respondent would pay the claimant £107,636.00 less deductions. That sum was made up of a basic award of £1,929.00 and a compensatory award of £105,707.00.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. The remedy figure recorded in the judgment was by agreement between the parties and was stated to be payable less deductions, comprising a basic award of £1,929.00 and a compensatory award of £105,707.00. | Upheld | — | £107,636 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £107,636
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,929
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £105,707
- 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.