Case 1600514/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v H V Bowen and Sons (Quarry) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600514/2020
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Cardiff, heard on 8 February 2021 before Employment Judge R Evans, held that Mr C Woosnam's unfair dismissal complaint against H V Bowen and Sons (Quarry) Limited was well founded and succeeded. The judgment states that the tribunal made a 100% deduction to the compensatory award applying Polkey v. AE Dayton Services Ltd, and also a 100% deduction to the basic and compensatory awards under ss.122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant contributed to his dismissal.
The claimant's wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claim for notice pay was found not well founded and was dismissed. The written judgment does not set out any monetary figures for the awards, so no separate sums can be extracted from the text provided. The decision was made and took effect on 8 February 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal complaint well founded. It recorded a 100% Polkey deduction to the compensatory award and a 100% deduction to the basic and compensatory awards under ss.122(2) and 123(6) ERA 1996 because the claimant contributed to his dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal described this as a wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claim for notice pay and dismissed it as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v. AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.