Case 2202039/2021 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202039/2021
- Decision date
- 28 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London Central hearing on 26, 27 and 28 April 2022, before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims under s.153 TULRCA and s.146 TULRCA were dismissed upon withdrawal. The claim under s.152 TULRCA failed and was dismissed.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim under s.94 ERA succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent. The judgment did not set out a monetary award at that stage, and instead directed that compensation for unfair dismissal would be determined at a remedy hearing on 28 June 2022 if the parties did not agree it beforehand.
In relation to remedy, the tribunal stated that a 50% reduction to the compensatory award would be made under Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142. It also recorded that there would be no reduction to the compensatory award under s.123(6) ERA.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The claim under s.153 TULRCA was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Trade union | The claim under s.146 TULRCA was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Trade union | The claim under s.152 TULRCA failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim under s.94 ERA succeeded. Compensation was to be determined at a remedy hearing on 28 June 2022 if not agreed. The tribunal directed a 50% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award and no reduction under s.123(6) ERA. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142
- s.123(6) ERA
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.