Case 6002734/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Jones v CW Edwards Transport Ltd HELD AT: Liverpool (by video over CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002734/2025
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Greer REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against CW Edwards Transport Ltd at Liverpool by video (CVP) on 17 November 2025, before Employment Judge Greer sitting alone. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not appear.
The tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The judgment does not set out detailed reasons within the text provided.
By way of remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant a basic award of £3,150 gross and a compensatory award of £2,900 gross. The accompanying notice confirmed that interest under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 would accrue from 7 January 2026 at the stipulated rate of 8% per annum if the award was not paid in full within 14 days of the relevant decision day (6 January 2026).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award of £3,150 gross and compensatory award of £2,900 gross awarded for this claim. | Upheld | — | £6,050 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,050
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,150
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,900
- 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.