Case 1803903/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803903/2020
- Decision date
- 23 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
- Venue
- CVP
- Panel members
- Ms G Fleming, Ms R Hodgkinson
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the dismissal was for redundancy, and that the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed on the same date even if a fair procedure had been followed. On that basis, the tribunal directed that any compensatory award for unfair dismissal should be reduced by 100%.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment, so no basic award for unfair dismissal was payable. The separate complaint of disability discrimination was found not well-founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the complaint was well-founded. It found the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed for redundancy on the same date if a fair procedure had been followed, so any compensatory award should be reduced by 100%. It also recorded that the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment, so no basic award was payable. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal held that the complaint of disability discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.