Case 1305879/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Locke v West Midlands Fire Service — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305879/2019
- Decision date
- 10 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Noons Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Locke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr D Locke’s unfair dismissal claim against West Midlands Fire Service was well founded and succeeded. It rejected both the claimant’s application for reinstatement and his application for re-engagement.
The tribunal applied a 70% reduction for contributory fault to both the basic award and compensatory award. After that reduction, it awarded £2,677.50 for the basic award and £210 for loss of statutory rights.
It also awarded £7,554.46 for loss of earnings to the date of the hearing and £6,912 for two years’ future loss of earnings. The total compensatory figure was not finalised because the respondent could not provide details needed to calculate pension loss.
A case management order was made for a further 2-hour hearing to finalise the compensation due to the claimant. The judgment therefore records a quantified award for the items above, but not a complete final total including pension loss.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. It refused reinstatement and re-engagement, applied a 70% reduction for contributory fault to the awards, and quantified the basic award and compensation items listed in the judgment. Pension loss was not yet calculated and was to be dealt with at a further 2-hour hearing. | Upheld | — | £17,354 |
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.