Case 1306915/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. R. Magara, solicitor v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1306915/2023
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr. R. Magara, solicitor
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the Employment Tribunal at Birmingham, heard on 9, 10, 11 and 12 July 2024 before Employment Judge Wedderspoon, the claimant, Mr. J. Cummins-Harris, brought claims against West Midlands Fire Service for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The judgment records that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal also found that the adoption of a different procedure would not have resulted in a different outcome. In the alternative finding recorded in the judgment, it held that the claimant was guilty of contributory fault and assessed that fault at 100%.
As a result of that finding on the claimant's conduct, the tribunal determined that he was not entitled to a basic award or a compensatory award. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment text provided.
The wrongful dismissal claim was found not well founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair, but also found that a different procedure would not have changed the outcome. It assessed contributory fault at 100% and held the claimant was not entitled to a basic award or compensatory award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal stated that the wrongful dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.