Case 1600253/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A. Weaver v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) Company No: 0018802 (a private unlimited company) HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600253/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A. Weaver
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr A. Weaver was unfairly dismissed by Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) Company No: 0018802 on 24 September 2020 for a reason related to conduct. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded, and the respondent conceded liability on the basis that it had failed to consider the claimant's appeal.
On remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant's conduct before dismissal made it just and equitable to reduce the basic award to nil. It also found that the claimant's dismissal was caused or contributed to by his actions to such an extent that any compensatory award should be reduced to nil.
The tribunal added that, in any event, any compensatory award ought to be reduced to nil to reflect the 100% risk that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed if an appeal had been held. No written reasons were provided beyond the oral reasons given at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal on 24 September 2020 was unfair because it related to conduct and the respondent conceded the claim on the basis that it had failed to consider the claimant's appeal. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.