Case 1602427/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Cawley v T J Morris Ltd — 2021

Case reference: 1602427/2020
Decision date: 12 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Evans Representation

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Cawley

Respondent

T J Morris Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that Mr Cawley's complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. It dismissed the claims for personal injuries and for re-instatement and re-engagement as not well founded.

The judgment recorded remedy adjustments: a 75% deduction to the basic award under section 122(2) ERA 1996, a 75% Polkey deduction, a 15% uplift for failure to adhere to section 207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and a 75% deduction to the compensatory award under section 123(6) ERA 1996. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment; the case was adjourned to determine outstanding remedy matters.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The complaint of unfair dismissal was found well founded and succeeded. Remedy was adjourned for outstanding matters.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The claim for personal injuries was found not well founded and dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The judgment described a claim for re-instatement and re-engagement as not well founded and dismissed; this appears to concern remedy rather than a separate statutory cause of action.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.