Case 6005893/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Darren Over v IT Hardware & Software Ltd (in administration) HELD AT: Manchester Employment Tribunal — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005893/2025
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Darren Over
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ficklin, sitting at Manchester Employment Tribunal on 3 December 2025, found that the claimant Mr Darren Over had been unfairly dismissed by the respondent IT Hardware & Software Ltd (in administration) under s.98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was well-founded and succeeded. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent did not appear.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant a total of £11,761.48. This was made up of a basic award of £10,761.48 for unfair dismissal, £300 for loss of pension, and £500 for loss of statutory rights. Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided.
A notice under Article 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 was issued, identifying the relevant decision day as 6 March 2026, the calculation day as 7 March 2026, and the stipulated rate of interest as 8% per annum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Respondent did not appear. Award comprises basic award of £10,761.48 for unfair dismissal, £300 for loss of pension, and £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £11,761 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,761
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £10,761
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £800
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.