VadeLab
Allowed in PartEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim Against an Online Retailer

Case No. 2400046/2024 · Judge Benson

📌 In brief

An Employment Tribunal ruled in favour of an employee who claimed unfair dismissal, ordering the employer to pay compensation. However, the tribunal dismissed the employee's separate claim regarding unauthorised wage deductions during their sick leave period.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must not dismiss an employee without a fair reason and proper procedure.

Topics

unfair dismissalcompensation

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98

Under this section, when determining whether the dismissal of an employee is fair or unfair, the employer must show the reason for the dismissal and prove that it falls within certain categories, including the employee's capability or qualifications, their conduct, redundancy, or a breach of duty or restriction imposed by law. Additionally, the fairness of the dismissal depends on whether the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances, considering the size and resources of the employer's business.

Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.

📖 Technical summary

The claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation, but their claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Employment Judge found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by their employer and awarded them a basic and compensatory award. The claim for unauthorised wage deductions due to sickness absence was dismissed.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

Case Number: 2400046/2024

1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Claimant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

[APPELLANT] On: 30 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge Benson

REPRESENTATION:

Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]

1. The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed.

2. The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums: (a) A basic award of £11,110 (b) A compensatory award of £19,619 The Recoupment Regulations do not apply. Note that these are actual the sums payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts have been applied.

3. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of two weeks’ pay for the claimant’s sickness absence is not well-founded. The claim is dismissed.

Case Number: 2400046/2024

2 Schedule Basic Award: 13.5 years service; [NAME] at dismissal on 31 October 2023. 18.5 weeks x £600 gross per week

£11,100 Compensatory Award Financial Loss at £540 net per week (including pension loss and guaranteed overtime) from 1 November 2023 to 31 March 2025 (74 weeks)

£39,968 Loss of Statutory rights

£500

£40,468 Less net earnings from new employment

£20,849 Total compensatory Award

£19,619

Approved by: Employment Judge Benson 30 March 2026 Judgment sent to the parties on: 1 May 2026

…………………………………… For the Tribunal:

Case Number: 2400046/2024

3

Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the [NAME]. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment- rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/

Case Number: 2400046/2024

4

NOTICE THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (INTEREST) ORDER 1990 ARTICLE 12 Case number: 2400046/2024 Name of case: [NAME] [APPELLANT]

v [RESPONDENT] [COMPANY] is payable when an Employment Tribunal makes an award or determination requiring one party to proceedings to pay a sum of money to another party, apart from sums representing costs or expenses.

No interest is payable if the sum is paid in full within 14 days after the date the Tribunal sent the written record of the decision to the parties. The date the Tribunal sent the written record of the decision to the parties is called the relevant decision day.

Interest starts to accrue from the day immediately after the relevant decision day. That is called the calculation day.

The rate of interest payable is the rate specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 on the relevant decision day. This is known as the stipulated rate of interest.

The Secretary of the Tribunal is required to give you notice of the relevant decision day, the calculation day, and the stipulated rate of interest in your case. They are as follows:

the relevant decision day in this case is: 1 May 2026

the calculation day in this case is: 2 May 2026

the stipulated rate of interest is: 8% per annum.

[NAME] For the Employment Tribunal Office

Case Number: 2400046/2024

5

GUIDANCE NOTE 1. There is more information about Tribunal judgments here, which you should read with this guidance note: www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-tribunal-hearings- judgment-guide-t426

If you do not have access to the internet, you can ask for a paper copy by telephoning the Tribunal office dealing with the claim.

2. The payment of interest on Employment Tribunal awards is governed by The Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990. Interest is payable on Employment Tribunal awards if they remain wholly or partly unpaid more than 14 days after the relevant decision day. Sums in the award that represent costs or expenses are excluded. Interest starts to accrue from the day immediately after the relevant decision day, which is called the calculation day.

3. The date of the relevant decision day in your case is set out in the Notice. If the judgment is paid in full by that date, no interest will be payable. If the judgment is not paid in full by that date, interest will start to accrue from the next day.

4. Requesting written reasons after you have received a written judgment does not change the date of the relevant decision day.

5. Interest will be calculated as simple interest accruing from day to day on any part of the sum of money awarded by the Tribunal that remains unpaid.

6. If the [APPELLANT] paying the Tribunal award is required to pay part of it to a public authority by way of tax or National Insurance, no interest is payable on that part.

7. If the Secretary of State has claimed any part of the sum awarded by the Tribunal in a recoupment notice, no interest is payable on that part.

8. If the sum awarded is varied, either because the Tribunal reconsiders its own judgment, or following an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal or a higher court, interest will still be payable from the calculation day but it will be payable on the new sum not the sum originally awarded.

9. The online information explains how Employment Tribunal awards are enforced. The interest element of an award is enforced in the same way.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The employer dismissed the employee without a fair reason.
  • The employer failed to follow proper dismissal procedure.
  • The employer made unlawful wage deductions from the employee's salary.
  • The employer breached contractual terms regarding notice periods and pension contributions.
  • The employer did not compensate for statutory redundancy payments or untaken holiday pay.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation, but their claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed.

Who was involved?

A worker (the claimant) and an employer (Lancashire Logistics International Limited).

How did the court decide, and why?

The Employment Judge found that the dismissal was unfair due to lack of proper procedure and fair reason. The wage deduction complaint was dismissed as it was not well-founded.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was cited for unfair dismissal claims.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant's argument regarding the lack of fair reason and proper procedure for their dismissal was decisive.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the claimant on the unfair dismissal issue but not on the wage deduction issue.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone unfairly dismissed may be entitled to compensation, but claims regarding unauthorised deductions must be well-founded.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify particular evidence or documents that were crucial.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.

Official source: Employment Tribunal — england-and-wales headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Employment Tribunal and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.