Case 6016078/2025 · Employment Tribunal
D Atkins v Country Village Inns — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016078/2025
- Decision date
- 3 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
D Atkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Manchester Employment Tribunal on 3 May 2025. The respondent failed to present a valid response in time, and Employment Judge Dunlop determined the claim under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure on the basis of the information supplied by the claimant.
The Employment Judge found that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded and that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. No reasoning beyond that finding is recorded in the judgment, which is a rule 22 default determination rather than a reasoned decision after a contested hearing.
The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £2,100 and a compensatory award of £19,125, comprising three months' loss of earnings and benefits of £14,625 and a further nine months' partial loss of earnings of £4,500 from the date the claimant obtained new employment. The total sum payable under the judgment is £21,225 gross, with statutory deductions potentially payable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Determined under rule 22 after the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. Basic award £2,100 and compensatory award £19,125 (three months' loss of earnings £14,625 plus a further nine months' partial loss £4,500), gross of statutory deductions. | Upheld | — | £21,225 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £21,225
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,100
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £19,125
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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.