Case 6013798/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Goodwin v Network Plus Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013798/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Goodwin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anderson, sitting alone at Manchester on 10 and 11 September 2025, found that the Claimant's claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed by Network Plus Limited. The judgment was sent to the parties on 22 October 2025.
The Respondent was ordered to pay a Basic Award of £2,100.00, a Compensatory Award of £777.41, and an award of £1,400.00 under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002, producing a total sum of £4,277.41. The recoupment regulations were stated not to apply.
Written reasons were not provided with the judgment, the tribunal noting that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only follow if requested. The substantive reasoning, legal tests, and factual findings are therefore not available from the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic Award of £2,100.00 and Compensatory Award of £777.41 awarded for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £2,877 |
| Other | Award under s.38 Employment Act 2002 (failure to provide written statement of particulars); not a standalone claim type in the locked taxonomy. | Upheld | — | £1,400 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,277
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,100
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £777
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.