Case 2202013/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Pal, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 2202013/2024
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lewis Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr K Pal, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant had made an unfair dismissal claim arising from his dismissal after working from his parents' home in Cornwall in August 2023. The respondent relied on misconduct, including its view that the claimant had not been authorised to work from Cornwall and had not been working during that period.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair because of procedural failings, including the failure formally to interview Mr Stride. It found there was a 50% chance the claimant would still have been dismissed if a fair procedure had been followed, so a Polkey deduction applied.
For contribution, the tribunal found the claimant genuinely believed he had permission to work from Cornwall and did not treat that misunderstanding as culpable. However, it found his failure to respond to his manager's specific queries and his apparent failure to do work while asserting he was working from home was culpable conduct contributing to dismissal, leading to reductions to the basic and compensatory awards.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The judgment reserved remedy for a later hearing and did not state a monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- band of reasonable responses
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Polkey
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.