Case 6008241/2025 · Employment Tribunal
L Cunha v ONMT Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6008241/2025
- Decision date
- 17 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baran
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Cunha
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Baran found L Cunha's complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded and held that ONMT Ltd had unfairly dismissed the claimant. The judgment records that summary reasons were given orally at the hearing but does not set out the underlying factual findings in writing.
The tribunal awarded £2,138.40 as a basic award and £10,701.55 net of tax and National Insurance as a compensatory award, producing a total monetary award of £12,839.95. The award includes a 20% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. The recoupment regulations apply; the prescribed element is £10,201.55 for the period from 15 January 2025 to 17 February 2026, and the amount exceeding that element is £2,638.40.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The award includes a 20% uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The recoupment regulations apply. | Upheld | — | £12,840 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,840
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,138
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £10,702
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
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.