Case 6023478/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Simon Clacher v Epic Print Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6023478/2024
- Decision date
- 29 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Richardson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Simon Clacher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge K Richardson found that the claimant Simon Clacher was unfairly dismissed by Epic Print Limited and that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. A 5% uplift was applied to the compensatory award under s.207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Tribunal made a basic award of £15,458.50 and a compensatory award which combined past losses (£15,649.21 net), future losses (£2,436.92 net), the 5% ACAS uplift (£904.30) and £500 for loss of statutory rights, grossed up to £23,738.05. Past income earned and new employment from 24 March 2025 paying £27,000 gross were credited against losses. The Recoupment Regulations apply with a prescribed element of £15,649.21.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Compensatory award uplifted by 5% for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. | Upheld | — | £39,697 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £39,697
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £15,459
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £23,738
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.