Employer concedes unfair dismissal after 10 years' service
Fonmigo Limited conceded it unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee. The tribunal awarded £85,709.92, including a basic award of £5,710 and a capped compensatory award of £79,999.92.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #unfair-dismissal
- #conceded-by-respondent
- #statutory-cap-applied
Key facts
- The respondent conceded that it unfairly dismissed the claimant.
- The claimant had 10 years of service.
- The claimant's weekly pay at dismissal was £1,538.46.
- The compensatory award was capped at £79,999.92 under section 124(1ZA) ERA.
- The total award including basic award was £85,709.92.
Timeline
-
Dismissal date
The claimant was dismissed on or around 30 July 2022, as referenced in the loss of earnings calculation.
-
Hearing and judgment
The tribunal heard the case and issued an oral judgment finding unfair dismissal, with a remedy schedule.
-
Amended judgment
The judgment was amended to correct the total award to £85,709.92.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to determine the appropriate remedy for an unfair dismissal that the employer had already admitted.
The outcome
The tribunal found that Fonmigo Limited unfairly dismissed the claimant, as conceded by the respondent.
- Basic award: £5,710.00
- Compensatory award (capped): £79,999.92
- Total award: £85,709.92
Lessons & takeaways
- An employer's concession of unfair dismissal can save time at hearing but does not avoid a substantial remedy award.
- Long-serving employees (10+ years) are entitled to a higher basic award, calculated as one week's pay per year of service.
- The statutory cap on compensatory awards is based on 52 times the employee's weekly pay, which can limit the total even when losses are higher.
- Representing yourself in an unfair dismissal claim is possible, but understanding remedy calculations is crucial to ensure you receive the correct amount.
A swift concession, a substantial award
This case shows what can happen when an employer accepts that a dismissal was unfair early in proceedings. Fonmigo Limited conceded the claim, so the tribunal did not need to hear evidence on liability. Instead, the hearing focused entirely on how much compensation the former employee should receive.
The claimant had worked for Fonmigo for 10 years, earning a gross monthly salary of £6,666.67. After dismissal, they found some work but at a significantly lower rate. The tribunal calculated losses from the date of dismissal to the hearing (38 weeks) and future losses for a further 52 weeks, taking into account earnings from new employment.
How the compensation was calculated
The basic award was straightforward: one week's pay (capped at £571) for each full year of service, giving £5,710. The compensatory award covered loss of earnings, loss of statutory rights, and future losses. After deducting pay in lieu of notice and earnings from mitigation, the total compensatory loss came to £89,573.50.
However, the law imposes a cap on compensatory awards. Under section 124(1ZA) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the maximum is the lower of a fixed amount (then £93,878) or 52 times the employee's weekly pay. Here, the weekly pay was £1,538.46, so 52 times that was £79,999.92 — which became the capped compensatory award. Adding the basic award gave a total of £85,709.92.
What this means for similar claims
For employees with high earnings, the statutory cap can significantly reduce the compensation they receive, even when their actual losses are higher. In this case, the claimant's total losses exceeded £89,000, but the cap limited the compensatory award to just under £80,000.
The case also highlights the importance of the basic award. With 10 years' service, the claimant received over £5,700 just for the fact of being unfairly dismissed. For those considering a claim, understanding how both awards are calculated — and the impact of the cap — is essential to setting realistic expectations.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.