Case 2201412/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Howells, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201412/2021
- Decision date
- 5 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coen
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Christopher Howells, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Coen at London Central on 4 and 5 April 2022, held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The written judgment contains no further factual findings or legal reasoning beyond that conclusion, and it records that the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
On remedy, the tribunal noted a 35% reduction in the compensatory award under the principles in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1987] IRLR 50 (HL). By agreement between the parties, the respondent was ordered to pay £16,555.42 within 28 days, comprising £25,469.88 less a Polkey deduction of £8,914.46.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The written record records that, by agreement between the parties, the respondent was ordered to pay £16,555.42, made up of £25,469.88 less a Polkey deduction of £8,914.46. | Upheld | — | £16,555 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,555
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £25,470
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited [1987] IRLR 50 (HL)
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.