Case 1401340/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Ramsbottom, Consultant v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401340/2023
- Decision date
- 20 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M. Ramsbottom, Consultant
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting at Exeter by video before Employment Judge Smail, found that the Claimant Mr T. Rigby was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent Emergn (UK) Ltd. The judgment is brief and does not set out the detailed reasoning behind the unfairness finding within the text provided.
The Tribunal applied a Polkey-type reduction, concluding that there was an 80% chance the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed had the Respondent followed a 2-week investigatory and consultation process. This reduction is reflected in the compensatory award.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a basic award of £2,569.50 and a compensatory award of £4,935.23, totalling £7,504.73, payable within 14 days of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found a Polkey reduction: 80% chance the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed after a 2-week investigatory/consultation process. | Upheld | — | £7,505 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,505
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,570
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,935
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.