Case 3323008/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Lovejoy v Rowgate Group Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323008/2021
- Decision date
- 11 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Lovejoy
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Shastri-Hurst, sitting alone at Reading on 26 and 27 June 2023, found that Mr G Lovejoy's claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Rowgate Group Ltd and CE Jeatt & Sons Ltd were well founded and upheld.
The parties agreed the remedy figures. The total sum awarded was £52,190.47, comprising a basic award of £3,264, a compensatory award of £46,079.47, and damages for wrongful dismissal of £2,847.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written record states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested by a party at the hearing or in writing within 14 days. The judgment itself contains no further factual findings or legal analysis on its face.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £3,264 and compensatory award £46,079.47 are attributable to the unfair dismissal claim, but the judgment presents the total award (£52,190.47) as agreed between the parties for both claims combined rather than splitting compensatory elements per claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Judgment identifies £2,847 as damages for wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | £2,847 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £52,190
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,264
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £46,079
- 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.
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.