Case 1301383/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kijak and Mrs Kijak v Mil-ver Metal Company Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1301383/2021
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bennett Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kijak and Mrs Kijak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Birmingham via CVP on 1, 2 and 3 March 2023 before Employment Judge Bennett. It upheld Mr Kijak's and Mrs Kijak's unfair dismissal claims. The judgment records basic awards of £1,076.00 for Mr Kijak and £411.01 for Mrs Kijak, each reduced by 75% for contributory fault.
The tribunal made no compensatory award because it applied a 100% Polkey deduction. It also dismissed the Claimants' breach of contract complaints as not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claims of unfair dismissal by Mr Kijak and Mrs Kijak were upheld. The tribunal awarded basic awards of £1,076.00 and £411.01 respectively, each reduced by 75% for contributory fault, and made no compensatory award because of a 100% Polkey deduction. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Claimants' complaints of breach of contract were found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,487
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,487
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey deduction
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.