Case 1802988/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Coyle v Station Taxis (Norton) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802988/2019
- Decision date
- 17 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Representation
- Venue
- Hull
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Coyle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found Mr H Coyle's unfair dismissal claim well founded against Station Taxis (Norton) Ltd. The judgment records that the claim succeeded and that the tribunal went on to assess compensation only for unfair dismissal.
In calculating the basic award, the tribunal used 3 x 1.5 x £120, giving £540, and then applied a 25% reduction for contributory conduct, leaving £405. For the compensatory award, it assessed loss at 6 x £120 (£720) plus £500 for loss of statutory protection, making £1,220 before deductions.
The tribunal then reduced that figure by 25% for contributory fault, to £915, and by a further 60% reduction pursuant to Polkey, leaving £366. A 10% increase under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation Act 1992) added £36.60, producing a compensatory award of £402.60 and a total unfair dismissal award of £807.60.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £808 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £808
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £405
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £403
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey
- section 207A of the Trade Union and 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.