Case 3310414/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310414/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cambridge on 8 and 9 July 2024 before Employment Judge L Brown. The claimant, Mr Mark Strowthers, appeared in person and the respondent, TYS Retail Limited, was represented by counsel. The judgment records that the matter was resolved by consent rather than after a substantive liability decision.
By consent, the tribunal ordered that, in relation to the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and holiday pay, the respondent would pay the claimant £7,000 within 28 days of the date of the judgment. The order does not split the lump sum between the individual claims and does not record findings on the merits of each claim.
The tribunal also made no order as to costs. The judgment is therefore a brief consent disposal recording the agreed financial resolution and leaving no separate reasons on liability or remedy allocation beyond the overall sum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Resolved by consent order: respondent to pay part of the agreed lump sum of £7,000 in relation to this claim together with the wrongful dismissal and holiday pay claims. | Settled | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Resolved by consent order: respondent to pay part of the agreed lump sum of £7,000 in relation to this claim together with the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims. | Settled | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Resolved by consent order: respondent to pay part of the agreed lump sum of £7,000 in relation to this claim together with the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. | Settled | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,000
- across all upheld claims
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.