Case 3311780/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Adam Hallsworth v NAM Global Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311780/2022
- Decision date
- 21 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Partington Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Adam Hallsworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAdam Hallsworth's complaint of unfair dismissal against NAM Global Ltd was upheld. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and recorded that there was a 0% chance that he would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It also found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, so the compensatory award was increased by 25% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal then reduced the compensatory award by 10% because it found that the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct. The judgment records the actual sums payable for the unfair dismissal claim as a basic award of £12,000 and a compensatory award of £10,044.
The claimant also succeeded on a breach of contract claim for notice pay. The tribunal awarded £4,800 as damages and said this had been calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as post-employment notice pay.
The tribunal found that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period 18 May 2022 to 1 July 2022 and ordered payment of £2,560, being the gross sum deducted. It also upheld the holiday pay complaint, finding that the respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and awarded £280. The judgment states that the claimant is responsible for tax or National Insurance on the wages and holiday pay awards.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. It found there was a 0% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It increased the compensatory award by 25% for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, then reduced the compensatory award by 10% for the claimant's blameworthy conduct. The sums payable were stated to be a basic award of £12,000 and a compensatory award of £10,044, after the adjustments. | Upheld | — | £22,044 |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint was well-founded. The tribunal awarded £4,800 as damages for breach of contract, calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood of tax being payable as post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £4,800 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 18 May 2022 to 1 July 2022. It ordered payment of £2,560, being the gross sum deducted, with the claimant responsible for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £2,560 |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint was well-founded. The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and awarded £280, with tax or National Insurance payable by the claimant. | Upheld | — | £280 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,684
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £12,000
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,044
- 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
- regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
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.