Case 1305010/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Ms Thomas, HR Consultant — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305010/2021
- Decision date
- 18 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Bayley’s claim of unfair dismissal against Tubeform Ltd succeeded. No other claims are identified in the extracted judgment text. The decision records that the unfair dismissal claim was upheld at the hearing held in Midlands West on 18 November 2022 before Employment Judge Harding.
On remedy, the tribunal made two separate reductions. First, it reduced the compensatory award by 75% to reflect the chance that, even if the dismissal had not been unfair, the respondent would have fairly dismissed the claimant in any event. Second, it found that the claimant’s culpable and blameworthy conduct contributed to his dismissal and held that it was just and equitable to reduce both the basic award and compensatory award by 50%.
The judgment states that the Recoupment Regulations apply and orders the respondent to pay total compensation of £5,350.22. The extracted text refers to an attached annex for the detailed calculation, and the total award recorded in the judgment is the figure used here.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It reduced the compensatory award by 75% to reflect the chance that, absent the unfairness, the respondent would have fairly dismissed the claimant, and further reduced the basic and compensatory awards by 50% for the claimant's culpable and blameworthy conduct. The judgment states that the compensation figure of £5,350.22 is set out in an attached annex. | Upheld | — | £5,350 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,350
- across all upheld claims
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.