Case 1305718/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Buchholz v GEZE UK Limited — 2021

Case reference: 1305718/2020
Decision date: 12 March 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Connolly
Venue: Birmingham

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Buchholz

Respondent

GEZE UK Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mr D Buchholz was unfairly dismissed by GEZE UK Limited, so his unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The written judgment is brief and records only the result and the remedy directions made at the hearing.

On remedy, the tribunal directed that the basic award be reduced by one third because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal, applying s.122(2) ERA 1996. It also directed that the compensatory award be reduced by one third because of conduct which contributed to the dismissal, applying s.123(6) ERA 1996.

The written record does not state the underlying monetary amounts for the basic award, compensatory award, or any total award. No other claims, characteristics, or remedies are recorded in the extract supplied.

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 recorded that the basic award would be reduced by one third under s.122(2) ERA 1996 for the claimant's conduct before dismissal, and the compensatory award would be reduced by one third under s.123(6) ERA 1996 for conduct contributing to the dismissal, but no monetary amounts are stated in the written record.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.