Case 6002921/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Reynolds v New Forest Car Sales Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002921/2024
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Reynolds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at Southampton on 22 September 2025 before Employment Judge Self, considered claims brought by Mr M Reynolds against New Forest Car Sales Limited. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr N Tudor, Consultant.
The Tribunal held that the claim for unfair dismissal was well-founded. The Respondent was ordered to pay compensation comprising a Basic Award of £3,858.00, a Compensatory Award of £22,039.79 and an ACAS Uplift of £5,509.85, producing a total award of £31,407.64. The Tribunal noted that its decision on the unfair dismissal claim was for substantially the same reasons as those given in the earlier unfair dismissal deposit order, and accordingly ordered that the £250 deposit paid by the Respondent be paid to the Claimant.
The claim for unpaid overtime, brought as an unlawful deduction of wages, was found not to be well-founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. Award comprises a Basic Award of £3,858.00, a Compensatory Award of £22,039.79 and an ACAS Uplift of £5,509.85, totalling £31,407.64. The £250 deposit paid by the Respondent was also ordered to be paid to the Claimant. | Upheld | — | £31,408 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid overtime (unlawful deduction of wages) was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,408
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,858
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £22,040
- 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.