Case 3308817/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Mogg v Prestige Network Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308817/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Mogg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a hearing in May 2025 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto sitting alone at Reading, it was declared by consent that the claimant, Mr D Mogg, had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent, Prestige Network Limited. The claimant's related complaints that his dismissal and other detrimental treatment were because of making a protected disclosure were found not well founded and were dismissed, as was his complaint of wrongful dismissal. The respondent's own employer contract claim was also dismissed.
On remedy, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a basic award of £2,569.50 and a compensatory award of £4,406.55 for unfair dismissal. It further found that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £3,408.64 (gross £4,758.81). A further sum of £781.52 was ordered pursuant to section 207A.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in this record. The available PDF text is the judgment summary only, so the tribunal's detailed reasoning, any legal tests applied, and the identity of any panel members are not visible in the source.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Declared unfairly dismissed by consent. Basic award £2,569.50 and compensatory award £4,406.55. | Upheld | — | £6,976 |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint that the claimant was dismissed because of making a protected disclosure was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint that the claimant was subjected to a detriment because of making a protected disclosure was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's employer contract claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Net sum of £3,408.64 awarded (gross £4,758.81). | Upheld | — | £3,409 |
| Other | Award of £781.52 pursuant to section 207A (the judgment cites the Employment and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; this appears to refer to the ACAS uplift provision in s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but the wording in the judgment text is reproduced as given). |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,166
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,570
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,407
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.