Case 6009391/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Samuel Francis v Microtill Ltd. — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009391/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Samuel Francis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr Samuel Francis brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Microtill Ltd. The hearing took place at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 13 and 14 February 2025 before Employment Judge B Elgot. The Respondent, represented by Ms L Ware, withdrew its Response and conceded that the dismissal on 14 May 2024 was unfair by reference to section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment therefore states that the unfair dismissal claim succeeds. The tribunal did not determine compensation in this judgment: it directed that compensation would be decided at a further hearing in chambers on 13 March 2025, with no attendance required by the parties. It also directed written submissions on remedy only by 28 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Respondent withdrew its Response and conceded that the Claimant's dismissal on 14 May 2024 was unfair by reference to section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. Compensation was left to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 98(4) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.