Case 1601762/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Eade (CAB Representative) For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601762/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge W Beard Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr M Eade (CAB Representative) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone at Cardiff before Employment Judge W Beard, held that Mr B Brown’s claim of unfair dismissal within the meaning of section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded. The judgment records only that conclusion on liability and does not set out further factual findings in the extracted text provided.
The tribunal also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 100% pursuant to sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the basic award and compensation were reduced by 100%. The extracted judgment does not state separate monetary figures for the award, nor does it record a final sum payable.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded under section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996, but reduced basic award and compensation by 100% because it found the claimant contributed to his dismissal to that extent under sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.