Case 8001701/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ricky Steven Gwiazda v KBB Distribution Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001701/2025
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ricky Steven Gwiazda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response was presented to the claim, and Employment Judge A Kemp issued a judgment on the available material under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal held that Mr Ricky Steven Gwiazda was unfairly dismissed by KBB Distribution Ltd.
The tribunal awarded £8,497.59 in total. This comprised a basic award of £1,931.25 and a compensatory award of £5,841.01. The compensatory award was expressed as covering past loss of £3,516.87 and future loss for six months of £2,324.14.
The judgment also recorded additional elements of £225.33 for pension loss and £500.00 for loss of statutory rights. The claims against the parties originally included as second and third respondents, Amani Plastics Limited and TDL UK Network Limited, were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | No response was presented. The claim was decided on the available material under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal found unfair dismissal and awarded compensation of £8,497.59, made up of a basic award of £1,931.25, a compensatory award of £5,841.01, pension loss of £225.33, and loss of statutory rights of £500.00. | Upheld | — | £8,498 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,498
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,931
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,841
- 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.