Case 2202377/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr C Plume, HR adviser — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202377/2020
- Decision date
- 8 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Mr G Brett's claim for unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record states that, had he not been unfairly dismissed, his employment would have continued for a further four weeks.
The tribunal also recorded that it was just and equitable to reduce any compensation by 100% because of the claimant's contribution to his dismissal, and to reduce the basic award by 100% because of his conduct. The short written record does not set out any quantified monetary award, and it notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record does not set out a quantified award; it records that, had the claimant not been unfairly dismissed, his employment would have continued for a further four weeks, and that both any compensation and the basic award should be reduced by 100% because of the claimant's contribution/conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 94 and 98(4) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.