Case 1307832/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 1307832/2019
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs I Fox, Miss L Clark
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Birmingham before Employment Judge Broughton with Mrs I Fox and Miss L Clark, recorded that Mr R Nock’s claims of unfair dismissal, unpaid holiday by consent, and disability discrimination succeeded against Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council.
On remedy, the judgment recorded agreed amounts after deductions for Polkey and conduct: a basic award of £5,184.00, a compensatory award (gross) of £768.00, injury to feelings of £4,000.00, and holiday pay (gross) of £1,418.58. The total stated by the tribunal was £11,370.58 subject to deductions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Basic award £5,184.00 and compensatory award (gross) £768.00; deductions for Polkey and conduct were recorded. | Upheld | — | £5,952 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday claim succeeded by consent; award recorded as holiday pay (gross). | Upheld | — | £1,419 |
| Disability discrimination | Injury to feelings award recorded at £4,000.00. | Upheld | Disability | £4,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,371
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,184
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £768
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey
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.