Case 1402435/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Nicholson For the v Mr H Robson — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402435/2020
- Decision date
- 1 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lowe Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Nicholson For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Southampton, heard by Employment Judge Lowe on 2 and 3 November 2021, upheld Mr Hickman's unfair dismissal claim. The written judgment records that the total compensatory award was nil.
The reason given for the nil award was that the basic award was reduced by 100% for contributory fault and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% on Polkey grounds. No separate monetary figure is recorded in the extracted judgment beyond the statement that the total compensatory award was nil.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims for notice pay, redundancy pay and holiday pay. The written record contains only the outcome and the award reductions, and does not set out further factual findings or a detailed written reasons section.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was upheld, but the judgment records a nil total compensatory award because the basic award was reduced by 100% for contributory fault and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% under Polkey. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as a claim for notice pay and dismisses it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey reduction
- contributory fault
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.