Case 1601743/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Polak v NSW Accident Repair Centre Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601743/2021
- Decision date
- 18 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Venue
- Cardiff and
- Panel members
- Mr R Mead, Mrs L Bishop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Polak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Cardiff and by video on 4 and 5 July 2022 before Employment Judge S Moore, with Mr R Mead and Mrs L Bishop as the lay members. The written judgment records only the formal outcomes, and notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, so no extended written reasoning is included in the extracted text.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claim for direct discrimination because of national origin contrary to section 13 Equality Act 2010, and dismissed the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant's wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. The respondent was ordered to pay damages of £1,766.77. No separate breakdown of the award is given in the written judgment extract, and no further remedy elements are recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment describes this as direct discrimination because of the claimant's national origin under section 13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent was ordered to pay damages of £1,766.77. | Upheld | — | £1,767 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,767
- across all upheld claims
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.