Case 3308102/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mark Gerhard v Beauty Labs International Limited (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308102/2023
- Decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fearon
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mark Gerhard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Fearon, sitting alone at Cambridge on 14 June 2024, held that Mark Gerhard’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that he had been unfairly dismissed. The judgment records no other claim types.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £6,566.50 and a compensatory award of £27,900 net, stated to represent three months’ pay at £9,300 net per month. The combined basic and compensatory award was £34,466.50.
Because the total compensation exceeded £30,000, the tribunal applied a gross-up exercise to the taxable element. It identified £30,000 as tax-free and £4,466.50 as the figure on which tax needed to be paid, which grossed up to £5,583.13.
The total award payable to the claimant by the respondent was therefore £35,583.13. The judgment notes that these are the actual sums payable after deductions or uplifts have been applied.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding 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 £6,566.50 plus a compensatory award of £27,900 net, then grossed up the compensation because the total exceeded £30,000, producing a total award payable of £35,583.13. | Upheld | — | £35,583 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £35,583
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,567
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £27,900
- 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.