Case 1802876/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Adams v Accent Housing Ltd Heard: Remotely by video — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802876/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Adams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms G Adams's claim of automatic unfair dismissal was well-founded and that she had been unfairly dismissed by Accent Housing Ltd. The judgment does not set out detailed oral reasons in writing, but it records the claimant's success on liability and identifies the dismissal as automatic unfair dismissal.
On remedy, the tribunal applied the principle in Polkey v A E Dayton Service Ltd to limit the claimant's losses to the period from 7 January 2020 to 6 June 2020. It also found that the claimant contributed to her dismissal by 25%. The parties then agreed that the respondent would pay £12,746.22 in compensation for unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim was well-founded and that she was unfairly dismissed. Losses were limited by the Polkey principle to 7 January 2020 to 6 June 2020, and the claimant was found to have contributed to her dismissal by 25%. | Upheld | — | £12,746 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,746
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v A E Dayton Service Ltd
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.