Case 1402579/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Symons (Family Friend) v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402579/2020
- Decision date
- 12 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Symons (Family Friend)
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr D. Condron was procedurally unfairly dismissed by Professional Witnesses Ltd. The judgment states that the respondent's procedural failures were sufficient to make the dismissal unfair, but it does not set out further detail in the extracted text beyond that conclusion.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,192.30 within 14 days. It did not award a compensatory award. The tribunal recorded two reasons for that refusal: it found there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been dismissed anyway had the procedural failures been cured, and it found that he contributed 100% to his own dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair and awarded a basic award of £2,192.30. It declined to award a compensatory award because it found there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been dismissed anyway had the procedural failures been cured, and that he contributed 100% to his own dismissal. | Upheld | — | £2,192 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,192
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,192
- statutory, unfair dismissal
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.