Case 1601605/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M.J. Kerry v Vale of Clwyd Mind Association — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601605/2021
- Decision date
- 21 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M.J. Kerry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Mr M.J. Kerry was unfairly dismissed by Vale of Clwyd Mind Association on 5 June 2021 for a reason related to conduct. In the liability judgment, the Tribunal said that, given the risk the claimant faced of being fairly dismissed in the circumstances, any compensatory award would be limited to consequential losses attributable to the respondent's action for a period of one month.
The Tribunal also said it would be just and equitable to reduce any basic award by 50% in consideration of the claimant's conduct before dismissal, and to reduce any compensatory award by 50% to reflect the extent to which the dismissal was caused or contributed to by the claimant's actions. Those were findings recorded in the liability judgment rather than a final quantified remedy decision.
At the remedy stage, the parties settled the claimant's application for an award on recorded terms. The Tribunal stayed the remedy hearing to allow those terms to be carried out, and noted that if neither party applied in writing by 4pm on 13 January 2023 to restore the hearing, the application for an award consequent on the judgment would be deemed withdrawn and dismissed. The Tribunal did not hear evidence on remedy and did not make a final remedy judgment; it also recorded that the recoupment provisions did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 5 June 2021 for a reason related to conduct. It also made liability-stage observations that any compensatory award would be limited to consequential losses for one month and that any basic and compensatory awards would be reduced by 50% for the claimant's conduct and contribution, but it did not issue a final remedy judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.