Case 3305627/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Richard Cooke v Seven Resourcing Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305627/2024
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCooey REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Richard Cooke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy consent, the tribunal held that Mr Richard Cooke had been unfairly dismissed by Seven Resourcing Limited. It found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and increased the compensatory award by 25% under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment records a basic award of £12,538.50 and a compensatory award of £60,000, described as the actual sums payable after any deductions or uplifts had been applied.
The tribunal also found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages to be well-founded. It held that the respondent had made deductions from the claimant's wages in the period November 2023 to January 2024 and ordered payment of £87,473.64 as the gross sum deducted. That figure was made up of bonus payments of £87,179.22 and a car allowance deduction of £294.42, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that amount.
Under the heading 'Wrongful dismissal', the tribunal found the notice-pay complaint well-founded and awarded £19,107.30 as damages for breach of contract. The judgment states that the figure was calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. The parties also reached agreement on costs, and the respondent agreed to pay £50,000 under Rule 76(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. All damages and costs awarded were ordered to be paid within 28 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded and applied a 25% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code. The judgment records a basic award of £12,538.50 and a compensatory award of £60,000, stated to be the actual sums payable after any deductions or uplifts. | Upheld | — | £72,539 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded for the period November 2023 to January 2024. The award comprised bonus payments of £87,179.22 and a car allowance deduction of £294.42, and the claimant was responsible for any tax or National Insurance on the gross sum. | Upheld | — | £87,474 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment recorded the notice-pay complaint under the heading 'Wrongful dismissal' and found the breach of contract claim well-founded. Damages of £19,107.30 were awarded using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of post-employment notice pay tax treatment. | Upheld | — | £19,107 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £229,119
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £12,539
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £60,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s.207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Rule 76(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.