Case 1401487/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Laidlaw v Muller UK and Ireland LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401487/2023
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdoch Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Laidlaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Bristol by CVP on 10 and 11 April 2024, held that Mr Laidlaw’s complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and that he was unfairly dismissed. In the remedy section, the tribunal recorded that there had not been any procedural unfairness for the purposes of a Polkey deduction, that no uplift would be made under section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 in relation to the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, and that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal by 30%, with both the basic and compensatory awards to be reduced accordingly.
The tribunal also held that the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded and that the claimant was awarded one month’s notice pay, but the judgment did not fix the amount. The complaint for holiday pay under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed.
Quantum was left to a remedy hearing listed for 20 June 2024, so this judgment does not contain a final monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Remedy was not quantified in this judgment; the tribunal recorded that there had not been any procedural unfairness for Polkey purposes, declined any uplift under section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and found 30% contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint in relation to notice pay was held well-founded and the tribunal said it was awarded for one month. The quantum was left to a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey deduction
- section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.