Case 6041649/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Bannon v ANS Group Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6041649/2025
- Decision date
- 2 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Bannon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal found that A Bannon had been constructively unfairly dismissed by ANS Group Ltd contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was well-founded and succeeded. Full reasons were given orally at the hearing; the written judgment does not record the underlying facts or further reasoning.
The Tribunal awarded a basic award of £6,154.29 and a compensatory award of £25,571.35, producing a total award of £31,725.64. The sums were stated to be gross and subject to any income tax or National Insurance contributions due. The recoupment provisions applied: the prescribed element was £13,621.53 for the period from 5 December 2025 to 2 June 2026, and the excess of the total award over that element was £18,104.11.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The Tribunal found that the Claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed contrary to section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Full reasons were given orally and are not set out in the written judgment. | Upheld | — | £31,726 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,726
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,154
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £25,571
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 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.