Case 1801497/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Stanton v Dunwood Specialties Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801497/2023
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moxon Representation
- Venue
- Leeds via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Stanton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that Mr P Stanton was unfairly dismissed by Dunwood Specialties Limited. The claim for wrongful dismissal failed and was dismissed.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award of £19,290. It assessed the compensatory loss figure at £31,140.67, made up of loss of earnings (£24,890.67), loss of statutory rights (£500), loss of pension (£2,626) and loss of car allowance (£3,125.10).
The tribunal then applied an 80% deduction under Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited, reducing the compensatory figure to £6,228.13. Because the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, the tribunal increased that figure by 25% to £7,785.16. The judgment states that the basic and compensatory awards together total £27,075.16.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal awarded a basic award of £19,290 and a compensatory award of £7,785.16, with the aggregate sum payable stated as £27,075.16 after the Polkey deduction and ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £27,075 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £27,075
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £19,290
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,785
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.