Case 1402498/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Jones v Berkeley Stainless Fittings Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402498/2020
- Decision date
- 14 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Dr J Miller, Mr H Launder
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr P Jones was unfairly dismissed by Berkeley Stainless Fittings Ltd and that his wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. It said it would not be just and equitable to reduce any basic or compensatory award on Polkey or contributory conduct grounds, and it increased the compensatory award by 15% because the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice relating to disciplinaries.
The age discrimination claim was dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the claims that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars and failed to permit the claimant to be accompanied, finding those claims were not well founded.
The respondent's contract claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the respondent. The extracted text includes a remedy note saying the claimant was awarded past loss to the hearing and 9 months' future loss, with loss of statutory protection at £300, but it does not record a final overall monetary total.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. It said it would not be just and equitable to make any reduction to the basic or compensatory awards for Polkey or contributory conduct, and increased the compensatory award by 15% for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice relating to disciplinaries. The extracted text records past loss to the hearing, 9 months' future loss, and loss of statutory protection at £300, but it does not record a final quantified total. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the wrongful dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Other | The claim that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of employment particulars was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim that the respondent failed to permit the claimant to be accompanied was found not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's contract claim was dismissed on its withdrawal by the respondent. | Withdrawn |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey
- ACAS Code of Practice relating to disciplinaries
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.