Case 2202735/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Susskin, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2202735/2020
Decision date: 21 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Adkin
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Dr. V. Weerasinghe, Ms Zofia Darmas

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr J Susskin, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On reconsideration of allegation 19, the tribunal held that Mr Cowie had a contractual right for grievances to be heard by the Board of Directors or its designee, but it was not shown that Ms Tomczak or Mr Andre knew of that right or deliberately denied it. The earlier finding on allegation 19 of victimisation and protected disclosure detriment was revoked and the claim dismissed.

For the remaining successful claims, the tribunal treated the dismissal communicated on 1 August 2019 as discriminatory and assessed loss on a but-for basis. It found a 15% chance that Mr Cowie would have retired as a good leaver on 30 April 2020, a 25% chance of retirement on 30 April 2023, and otherwise retirement on 30 April 2024, with a further 10% deduction for the possibility of a non-discriminatory end of employment for other reasons.

The tribunal ordered the fourth respondent to pay a basic award of £8,976 for unfair dismissal. It also awarded £20,000 for injury to feelings, described as toward the upper end of the middle Vento band, together with £5,431.23 interest at 8% from 1 August 2019 to 21 December 2022, with the injury-to-feelings award joint and several against all four respondents.

The compensatory award for loss of income was not finally quantified in this judgment. The tribunal made findings on bonus, dividend, LTIP, relocation and other expense heads, allowed some items in full or in part, rejected others, and said further input was needed on net earnings figures, LTIP, dividends, interest on financial losses and grossing-up before a final compensatory figure could be entered.

It rejected aggravated damages and applied a 5% deduction for accelerated receipt of future losses. It also applied a 7.5% ACAS uplift under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the dismissal was handled as a performance dismissal without the usual written disciplinary hearing or appeal, and the grievance process was not satisfactorily handled.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	The tribunal treated the 1 August 2019 dismissal as discriminatory and assessed future loss on a but-for basis, but the compensatory award was left to be finalised after further net figures, LTIP, dividend and grossing-up input.	Upheld	Age	—
Unfair dismissal	The employer fourth respondent was ordered to pay the basic award of £8,976. The compensatory loss exercise remained to be completed separately.	Upheld	—	£8,976
Whistleblowing	The remedy reasons proceeded on successful protected disclosure detriment findings on allegations 20, 21, 23 and 27. Allegation 19 was later revoked and dismissed on reconsideration.	Upheld	—	—
Victimisation	The tribunal's injury-to-feelings and loss reasoning treated the remaining successful victimisation findings as part of the composite case. Allegation 19 was later revoked and dismissed on reconsideration.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.