Case 2207021/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Leonhardt, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207021/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mrs L Moreton, Ms J Cohen
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Leonhardt, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and succeeded. It found, however, that no basic award was payable because the respondent had made a redundancy payment to the claimant under section 122(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that no compensatory award was due. It concluded that there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been dismissed even if a fair redundancy procedure had been followed, and it therefore reduced the compensatory award by 100% applying Polkey v A E Dayton Service Limited 1988 ICR 142.
The claimant's claim of direct age discrimination was dismissed as not well-founded, and the claim of breach of contract was also dismissed as not well-founded. Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing, and the written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint found well-founded. No basic award was payable under section 122(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the respondent had made a redundancy payment. No compensatory award was due because the tribunal found there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been dismissed had a fair redundancy procedure been followed, so the award was reduced by 100% under Polkey v A E Dayton Service Limited 1988 ICR 142. | Upheld | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim of direct discrimination because of age was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 122(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Service Limited 1988 ICR 142
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.