Case 3312050/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Hammer, Solicitor For the v Aurelius Environmental Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312050/2020
- Decision date
- 13 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Hammer, Solicitor For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
The claimant was awarded £20,447.95 in total, comprising a basic award of £2,152.00 and a compensatory award stated as £18,295.95. The compensatory award included loss of earnings, employer pension contributions, outstanding expenses, loss of statutory rights, and a 10% uplift for the respondent's unreasonable failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice Number 1.
Written reasons were not included in the judgment because reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards a total of £20,447.95. It does not adjudicate a separate redundancy pay claim in the supplied text. | Upheld | — | £20,448 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,448
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,152
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £18,296
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Acas Code of Practice Number 1
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.