Case 6032179/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hesketh v The Phone Guys Burnham on Sea Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6032179/2025
- Decision date
- 24 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self DEFAULT
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hesketh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent did not enter a Response to the Claim. Employment Judge Self determined the matter on the papers under Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, having considered the Claimant's schedule of loss.
The tribunal found the claim of unfair dismissal to be well-founded and awarded the Claimant a basic award of £250. The tribunal also found the claim of wrongful dismissal to be well-founded and awarded £500 in respect of that claim.
The total sum payable under the Judgment is £750. The Judgment was approved on 24 February 2026 and sent to the parties on 26 February 2026.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Default judgment under Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 following the Respondent's failure to enter a Response. Basic award of £250. | Upheld | — | £250 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Default judgment under Rule 22(2). Claimant awarded £500 in respect of wrongful dismissal. | Upheld | — | £500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £750
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £250
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 22(2) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
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.