Case 1602471/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jeffrey Steven Wainwright v Cardiff Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 1602471/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jeffrey Steven Wainwright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal, finding that it was not well-founded and that Mr Wainwright was not unfairly dismissed. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and does not set out further reasoning on that issue.
The Tribunal upheld the complaint of breach of contract in respect of notice pay. It found a 12-week notice entitlement and recorded an agreed net weekly pay of £427.43.
The Tribunal found that the claimant unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015. It considered it just and equitable to reduce the award by 15% under s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, resulting in a net award of £4,359.79.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment identifies this as breach of contract for notice pay and awards net damages after a 15% reduction for unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS Code. | Upheld | — | £4,360 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,360
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.