Case 3310968/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v W Diggins — 2021
- Case reference
- 3310968/2020
- Decision date
- 15 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a CVP hearing in Cambridge on 12 November 2021 before Employment Judge Ord, the claimant Stephen William Eaton appeared in person and the respondent did not attend or represent. The tribunal held that he was unfairly dismissed and dismissed in breach of contract. It also found that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy, but that he was unfairly selected for redundancy. The stated ground for dismissal was gross misconduct, which the tribunal did not accept as the principal reason.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the claimant was paid £250 per week gross and £225 per week net. It found that he was dismissed on 18 July 2020 and awarded four weeks' notice pay of £900, a statutory redundancy payment of £1,500, and compensatory compensation for unfair dismissal of £16,975. That compensatory award comprised £900 for 15 August 2020 to 10 September 2020, £4,375 for 11 September 2020 to 14 May 2021, £5,850 for loss to the date of the hearing, and £5,850 for 26 weeks' future loss.
The tribunal applied the recoupment provisions. It identified the protected period as 18 July 2020 to 16 October 2020 and the protected sum as £1,525. The total award was £19,375.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £16,975 |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £900 |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,375
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £16,975
- 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.