Case 1306511/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Buck v Central Management Catalogue Agency (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306511/2024
- Decision date
- 28 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Buck
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr K Buck’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and that he had been unfairly dismissed by Central Management Catalogue Agency (UK) Limited. The hearing took place at Birmingham on 17 and 18 March 2025 before Employment Judge Walker, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Miss Adele Akers of counsel.
On remedy, the tribunal stated that there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. For that reason, it held that no compensatory award was payable. It also recorded that the claimant had received a redundancy payment on termination of employment, so no basic award was payable. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. It found there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, so no compensatory award was payable. The claimant had also received a redundancy payment on termination, so no basic award was payable. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- 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.