Case 1600737/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C James v RGM Security Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600737/2021
- Decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Evans Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr James's unfair dismissal claim. It found the claim well-founded and recorded that, had a fair process been followed, he would have been dismissed four weeks from the date of dismissal. It also noted that any compensatory award would be subject to a 25% uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures 2015, and a 60% deduction to the basic and compensatory awards under sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had contributed to his dismissal.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claim for notice pay. It made no decision at this stage on loss of statutory rights. The case was listed for a further hearing to determine the duration of the claimant's employment and remedy, with directions for updated loss evidence and documents to be exchanged before that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. The tribunal recorded a Polkey reduction of four weeks, a 25% ACAS uplift, and a 60% deduction for contributory conduct when remedy is assessed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of wrongful dismissal/breach of contract for notice pay was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures 2015
- 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.