Case 6031497/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Midgley v Northern Radiators Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6031497/2025
- Decision date
- 29 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Midgley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that he had been unfairly dismissed by Northern Radiators Ltd. The tribunal concluded there was no chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and that he did not cause or contribute to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, so no reduction in compensation was made.
The tribunal further found that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. It considered it just and equitable to increase the compensatory award by 25% under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £13,941.38 and a compensatory award of £3,801.65 (inclusive of a £760.33 ACAS uplift). The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 were recorded as not applying.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £13,941.38 and compensatory award £3,801.65 (which includes £760.33 ACAS uplift). Figures rounded to nearest integer GBP. | Upheld | — | £17,743 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,743
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,941
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,802
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
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.