Case 2200423/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brian Wong v Tradition Management Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2200423/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdoch Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Brian Wong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a broker employed by the respondent from 6 January 2020 until summary dismissal on 31 August 2023, brought claims of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal/notice pay arising from an investigation into trade splitting and switching practices on collateral baskets. The respondent conceded procedural unfairness on the unfair dismissal claim but argued the dismissal resulted from gross misconduct so that no compensation should be awarded. The respondent also counter-claimed for partial repayment of a signing-on bonus under clause 5.6 of the contract.
Employment Judge Murdoch held the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded and applied three adjustments to remedy: a 50% Polkey reduction (with a fair procedure assessed to have taken one month longer), a 25% uplift under section 207A(2) TULRCA 1992 for extensive and deliberate breaches of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, and a 50% reduction for contributory fault to both basic and compensatory awards. The claimant was found to be a credible witness, though his conduct was found culpable or blameworthy in specified respects, including being aware of internal splitting when he claimed otherwise and underplaying his role in Crest fine mitigation in the Greenberg interview.
On wrongful dismissal, the Tribunal found the claimant's acts, individually or together, did not amount to gross misconduct entitling summary dismissal, and the notice pay claim (17.5 weeks) succeeded. The respondent's counterclaim for repayment of part of the signing-on bonus was dismissed, the Tribunal holding that clause 5.6 could not be relied upon after the respondent had repudiated the contract by unfairly dismissing the claimant. Quantum was reserved to a remedy hearing on 8 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Respondent conceded procedural unfairness. Tribunal found a 50% Polkey reduction (dismissal likely to have occurred in any event, with a fair process taking one month longer), a 25% ACAS Code uplift on the compensatory award, and a 50% contributory fault reduction to both basic and compensatory awards. Quantum to be decided at a remedy hearing on 8 October 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal / notice pay claim well-founded. Tribunal found the claimant's conduct did not amount to gross misconduct entitling summary dismissal. Notice period agreed at 17.5 weeks; quantum deferred to remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim for repayment of a proportion of the signing-on bonus (capped at the Tribunal's £25,000 jurisdiction) under clause 5.6 of the contract. Tribunal held the respondent could not rely on the contract to claw back the bonus after having repudiated it by unfairly dismissing the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey
- section 207A(2) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1: Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)
- band of reasonable responses
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.