Case 2201412/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Ogilvy, Lay representative For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201412/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Nicolle Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Ogilvy, Lay representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant and from Mr Fon Mbatang for the respondent, together with evidence from Diana Underwood, Director of Quality and Care, and legal submissions from both representatives at the hearing on 14 January 2020. It upheld the unfair dismissal claim, but the judgment records that the claimant's compensation was nil because the tribunal made a 100% deduction from the compensatory award under Polkey, a 100% deduction for contributory conduct under s.123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and a 100% deduction from the basic award under s.122(2) of the Act.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but applied a 100% deduction to the compensatory award under Polkey and for contributory conduct under s.123(6) ERA 1996, and a 100% deduction to the basic award under s.122(2) ERA 1996, so the compensation awarded was nil. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim for wrongful dismissal (notice pay) failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Polkey
- s.123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.122(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.