Case 6021239/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Arthy v ARC Group London Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6021239/2024
- Decision date
- 26 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Arthy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal at Watford, before Employment Judge Arullendran, heard the claim of Mr P Arthy against ARC Group London Ltd on 2 and 3 March 2026. The title of the respondent was amended to ARC Group London Limited. The tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £2,100.00 and a compensatory award of £7,187.35, giving a total of £9,287.35. The judgment records that these are the actual sums payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts have been applied, and that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 do not apply.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will only be provided if requested within 14 days, so the underlying reasoning is not set out in the written record available.
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 £7,187.35; total £9,287.35. Sums stated as net of any deductions or uplifts. | Upheld | — | £9,287 |
| Breach of contract | Listed on gov.uk as a category but the written judgment does not expressly adjudicate a breach of contract complaint; outcome unclear from the available text. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,287
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,100
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,187
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.