Case 1303590/2018 · Employment Tribunal
in person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1303590/2018
- Decision date
- 12 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr S Mohammad was unfairly dismissed by Tesco Stores Limited. It also found that, had the respondent followed a fair procedure, he would have been dismissed fairly six weeks later and would not have remained off sick after the expiry of his last fit note.
On remedy, the tribunal reduced the basic award to zero because of the claimant's conduct, as detailed in the liability reasons. It limited the compensatory award to losses arising solely from the respondent's procedural failings and said that no further award, and no reduction for contributory conduct, would be just and equitable.
The written judgment records a compensatory award of £1,749.48, comprising the losses identified in the decision, and a total award of £1,749.48.
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 but would have been dismissed fairly six weeks later. The basic award was reduced to zero because of his conduct, and the compensatory award was limited to losses arising solely from the respondent's procedural failings. | Upheld | — | £1,749 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,749
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,749
- 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.