Case 1403160/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Webb v Parkcare Homes (No.2) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403160/2020
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell
- Panel members
- Ms R Hewitt-Gray, Mr G Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Webb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Michael Webb’s dismissal by Parkcare Homes (No. 2) Limited was unfair. Liability was decided at a hearing in Exeter by video on 25 to 28 April 2022, with Employment Judge Fowell sitting with Ms R Hewitt-Gray and Mr G Jones. The tribunal did not quantify compensation at that stage, but recorded that a further hearing would be needed to assess it.
In the liability judgment, the tribunal applied a 75% Polkey deduction to the compensatory award and reduced the Basic Award by 75% for contributory conduct. It also awarded a 15% uplift for breaches of the ACAS Code of Practice. The written record states that the compensation issue remained outstanding and would be dealt with at a later hearing.
The remaining claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the dismissal was not in breach of contract, dismissed the complaints of direct discrimination and harassment, dismissed the complaints of detriment at work and dismissal for making a protected disclosure, and found that the claimant did not suffer an unlawful deduction from wages.
Because neither party could give full details of the claimant’s earnings at the liability hearing, the tribunal directed that loss of earnings would be assessed using the gross monthly figure stated in the claim form, which the respondent did not dispute. The claimant was ordered to provide details of subsequent earnings and supporting documents, and the matter was listed for a final compensation hearing on 22 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. Compensation was not yet quantified at this liability hearing; a later hearing was listed for assessment of compensation. The tribunal ordered a 75% Polkey reduction, a 75% reduction to the Basic Award for contributory conduct, and a 15% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the dismissal was not in breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that the complaint of direct discrimination was dismissed, but the extracted text does not identify the protected characteristic relied on. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of suffering a detriment at work for making a protected disclosure was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of dismissal for making a protected disclosure was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the claimant did not suffer an unlawful deduction from wages. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey deduction
- contributory conduct
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.