Case 6008646/2025 · Employment Tribunal
MR M S BHOGAL Respondent HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Heard at Birmingham (by CVP) v Mr. S Gittins (Counsel) SUPPLEMENTARY — 2026
- Case reference
- 6008646/2025
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr.
Parties
2 namedMR M S BHOGAL Respondent HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Heard at Birmingham (by CVP)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningSupplementary remedy judgment by Employment Judge J S Burns. On the respondent's application for reconsideration, the previous re-instatement Order (made 31 October 2025) was confirmed. The respondent failed to comply with the order. The judge found the respondent's claimed loss of trust and confidence was not genuine or justified, and that practical objections raised (induction, mentor, salary band) were not supported by policy or other evidence. Under s.117(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 the respondent was ordered to pay £20,744.01 (basic award £2,800; loss of statutory rights £350; salary loss December 2024 to December 2025 of £32,426 less £5,941 overpayment, less 30% contributory fault), subject to the recoupment provisions (prescribed amount £18,539.01; balance £2,205). Under s.117(3)(b) ERA 1996, an additional award of 52 weeks' pay (£36,576) was made because the tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had any good or valid reason for not complying with the re-instatement Order, having also breached the judge's directions, including a direction that the CEO be informed and approve any non-compliance.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £57,320 |
Legal tests applied
5 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £57,320
- Basic award
- £2,800
- Compensatory award
- £17,944
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.