Case 1601014/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Wakeman v Canton Liberal Workingmen’s Club and Institute Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601014/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Powell Dated
- Venue
- By Video Link
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Wakeman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs M Wakeman brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Canton Liberal Workingmen’s Club and Institute Limited. The tribunal held that she was unfairly dismissed.
In the remedy decision, the tribunal reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 75% because of the claimant’s culpable conduct. It also reduced the compensatory award further to reflect a 45% prospect that, if a reasonable procedure had been adopted by the respondent, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
The respondent was ordered to pay a basic award of £1,950 and a compensatory award of £402.50. The written record states that the Employment Tribunal’s reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 75% for the claimant's culpable conduct, and reduced the compensatory award further to reflect a 45% prospect that, had a reasonable procedure been adopted, the claimant would have been fairly dismissed. | Upheld | — | £2,353 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,353
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,950
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £403
- 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.