Case 1304221/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304221/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Webster
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr J Carroll, Ms D Keyms
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at London Central, chaired by Employment Judge Webster with Mr J Carroll and Ms D Keyms, dismissed the claimant's claims for direct race discrimination and for unauthorised deductions from wages. The direct discrimination claim was recorded as not upheld, and the wages claim was also not upheld.
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal. It recorded that no award had yet been made at the liability stage and that a remedy hearing would be listed shortly. The judgment therefore resolves liability but not the final monetary outcome.
On remedy-related findings, the tribunal said it was just and equitable to reduce relevant damages by 80% because of the claimant's blameworthy or culpable conduct before dismissal, referring to ERA sections 122(2) and 123(6). It also said that no reduction should be made to any compensatory award to reflect the possibility that the claimant would have been dismissed anyway had a fair and reasonable procedure been followed, citing Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987].
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim presented as direct race discrimination; not upheld. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was not upheld. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim upheld, but the judgment records that no award had yet been made and that a remedy hearing would be listed shortly. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim upheld. The tribunal said no reduction should be made to any compensatory award for Polkey, but that relevant damages should be reduced by 80% because of the claimant's blameworthy or culpable conduct before dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987]
- ERA sections 122(2) and 123(6)
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.