VadeLab
AllowedEmployment Tribunal·england-and-wales·

Employment Tribunal Awards Claimant £38,527.17 for Unfair Dismissal

Case No. 6019271/2024 · Judge C H O'Rourke

📌 In brief

In this case, an employee won their unfair dismissal claim against their employer, securing compensation for loss of earnings and breach of contract. The Employment Tribunal awarded the sum of £38,527.17 to the claimant.

⚖️ Legal holding

An employer must provide a fair reason and follow a fair procedure when dismissing an employee.

Topics

unfair dismissalcompensatory award

Provisions

📖 What the law says

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.98

For a dismissal to be considered fair, the employer must demonstrate the reason for the dismissal, which can be related to the employee's capability or qualifications, their conduct, redundancy, or a legal requirement preventing them from continuing in their role. Additionally, the employer must act reasonably based on the circumstances, including the size and resources of the company.

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

📖 Technical summary

The claimant was awarded compensation for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.

📜 Headnote Official document

The claimant successfully argued unfair dismissal and breach of contract against the respondent, receiving a total award of £38,527.17 from Employment Judge C H O’Rourke at Bristol Employment Tribunal.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Number: 6019271/2024 1

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant

Respondent

Mr [RESPONDENT] v The [RESPONDENT] at: Bristol (by video)

On: 24 April 2026

Before: Employment Judge C H O’Rourke

Appearances For the Claimant: [redacted]

In person For the Respondent: [redacted]

[NAME] – prospective Board Member

REMEDY JUDGMENT

The Respondent is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of £38,527.17, as set out in the attached Schedule.

Employment Judge O’Rourke Dated: 25 April 2026

Judgment sent to the parties on 15 May 2026

[NAME] [NAME] For the Tribunal

Schedule Unfair Dismissal

Case Number: 6019271/2024 2

Basic Award 7 years x 1.5 weeks @ £700 per week £7,350.00 Compensatory Award

Loss of earnings for 18 months, from date of dismissal onwards @ £2,602.53 per month

£46,845.54

Less earnings in that period

(£18,979.49)

Sub-Total £27,866.05

Less 15% deduction for failure to follow ACAS Code (£ 4,179.90)

Sub-Total £23,686.15

Loss of Statutory Rights

£ 700.00

Pension loss @3% on £27,866.05

£ 835.98

Sub-Total £ 1,535.98

Less 15% deduction for failure to follow ACAS Code (£ 230.39)

Sub-Total £ 1,305.59

Total Unfair Dismissal Award £32,341.74

Breach of Contract in Respect of Pay in Lieu of Notice

7 weeks @ £800 per week

£ 5,600.00

Grand Total Award (less grossing up for income tax) £37,941.74

(Difference in figure from that in oral judgment (£38,172.97) is due to need to deduct 15% ACAS Code deduction from awards for loss of statutory rights and pension, as they are part of the Compensatory Award)

‘Grossing Up’ for Income Tax

Not discussed at the Hearing, but required on the authority of Somerset County Council v Chaloner EAT 0063/14 (and as envisaged in the Respondent’s counter-schedule of loss). Deducting the award for pay in lieu of notice (as it is taxable in any event), the total remaining sum is £32,341.74, of which £30,000 is tax-free. The balance therefore which needs to be ‘grossed up’, to take account of the Claimant’s tax liability is £2341.74 That figure, ‘grossed up’ at a 20% tax rate is -

£2927.17 leaving a balance due to the Claimant of -

£ 585.43

Case Number: 6019271/2024 3

Grand Total Award, including ‘grossing up’ - £38,527.17

Note - 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.

📊 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

  • Employer failed to provide a fair reason for dismissal.
  • Employer did not follow a proper procedure before dismissing the employee.
  • Employer dismissed without considering the context of the employee's conduct.
  • Employer breached the implied term of trust and confidence, leading to resignation.

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

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The claimant was awarded a total of £38,527.17 for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.

Who was involved?

A worker brought the case against their employer.

How did the court decide, and why?

The Employment Judge found that the employer failed to provide a fair reason or follow a fair procedure in dismissing the employee.

Which laws or rules were applied?

Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was cited as relevant legislation.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The claimant's argument focused on the unfair dismissal and breach of contract, leading to a compensatory award for loss of earnings and other damages.

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

The decision was in favour of the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Individuals facing unfair dismissal may be entitled to compensation if they can prove their employer's actions were unjust and procedurally flawed.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment did not specify particular pieces of evidence, but typically such cases rely on employment contracts, emails, witness statements, and ACAS conciliation certificates.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal if certain conditions are met.

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

It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor when dealing with employment disputes.

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.