Case 1601092/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Rudd - Counsel For the v Mr J Jenkins - Counsel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601092/2019
- Decision date
- 12 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self DATE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Rudd - Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Birmingham on 4 and 5 May 2021 found that Mr J Warburton’s claim of unfair dismissal against Houghtons Caravan & Holiday Services Limited was well-founded. It recorded that the remedy was affected by a 25% uplift for the respondent’s failure to follow the ACAS Code, a 50% reduction to both basic and compensatory award for the claimant’s contributory fault, and a limitation of the compensatory award to two weeks’ loss of earnings on Polkey grounds.
The tribunal’s final award for unfair dismissal was £2,672.00. The judgment does not separately break that figure into basic award, compensatory award, or interest components.
The claimant’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and awarded £2,672.00 after a 25% ACAS Code uplift, a 50% reduction for contributory fault, and a Polkey limitation to two weeks' loss of earnings. | Upheld | — | £2,672 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,672
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code
- Polkey
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.