Case 6000129/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Pickard (Counsel) For the v We Are 778 Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000129/2025
- Decision date
- 19 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Pickard (Counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal succeeded and declared that he was unfairly dismissed. The judgment records that it was understood the claimant was dismissed for reason of redundancy, and awarded a statutory redundancy payment / basic award of £5,538.42 and a compensatory award of £7,849.35.
The Tribunal also upheld the claimant's complaint for accrued but untaken holiday pay for 9.6 days, awarding £1,181.57 gross. It further upheld the complaint for 9 weeks' notice pay, awarding £5,538.42 gross.
The respondent did not attend and was not represented, and no response had been submitted. Reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment records only the decision and awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded and records that it was understood the dismissal was for reason of redundancy. The award under this head is described as a statutory redundancy payment / basic award plus a compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £13,388 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay for 9.6 days succeeded. | Upheld | — | £1,182 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a complaint for 9 weeks notice pay. It does not use the phrase wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | £5,538 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,108
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,538
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,849
- 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.