Case 1601947/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R N Jones Mr C Childes v Robyn Jones t/a Bob Jones & Sons — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601947/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R N Jones Mr C Childes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that both claimants were unfairly dismissed by the respondent. It limited compensation to a period of three weeks' pay, applying the Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited principle. For Mr Childes, the parties had agreed the compensatory figure and the respondent was ordered to pay him £450. For Mr Jones, the compensatory award was not fixed in this judgment and was to be considered at a separate remedy hearing.
The tribunal also ordered additional compensation of £300 under section 38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had failed to provide the claimants with a written statement of employment particulars. That order was made in respect of both claimants. No basic award, injury to feelings award, or final overall total was set in this judgment because the First Claimant's remedy remained outstanding.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found both claimants were unfairly dismissed. The compensatory award was limited to three weeks' pay under Polkey, but the First Claimant's compensatory award was left to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | In relation to the Second Claimant, Mr Childes, the parties agreed the compensatory award and the respondent was ordered to pay £450. | Upheld | — | £450 |
| Other | The tribunal ordered additional compensation of £300 under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the order was made for each claimant. | Upheld | — | £300 |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.