Case 8001702/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ricky Gwiazda v KBB Distribution Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001702/2025
- Decision date
- 13 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ricky Gwiazda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNo response had been presented to the claim. Under rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Employment Judge J Hendry issued judgment on the available material. The tribunal found that Mr Ricky Gwiazda was unfairly dismissed by KBB Distribution Ltd.
The tribunal awarded a total of £7,413.20. That comprised a basic award of £1,030.34 and a compensatory award of £6,382.86.
The compensatory award was broken down in the judgment as past loss of £3,783.96, future loss for 43 weeks at £43.42 per week, calculated by reference to the difference between £420.44 and £377.02, amounting to £1,867.06, pension loss of £231.84, and loss of statutory rights of £500.
The judgment also records that the claims against the 2nd and 3rd 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 | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a total of £7,413.20, consisting of a basic award of £1,030.34 and a compensatory award of £6,382.86. | Upheld | — | £7,413 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,413
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,030
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £6,383
- 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.