Case 1400596/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Toms v ISS Facility Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400596/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Toms
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded judgment that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out the factual findings leading to that conclusion.
The tribunal stated that, if the remedy was compensation, any compensatory award would be reduced by 80% under the Polkey principle. In light of that and because the claimant sought compensation only, the parties agreed that the respondent would pay the claimant £4,000, and the respondent consented to an order for that payment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and that, because the claimant sought compensation only, the parties agreed the respondent would pay £4,000. The judgment does not break this figure into remedy components. | Upheld | — | £4,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £4,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey principle
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.