Case 2300183/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Booker v Sky In-Home Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300183/2023
- Decision date
- 11 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Booker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr P Booker’s complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and held that he was unfairly dismissed. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Evans sitting alone at London South by video on 3 October 2023, with the written record sent to the parties on 11 October 2023.
On remedy, the tribunal found that there was a 75% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It also found that the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct, and that it was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 75% on that basis.
The tribunal further held that it was just and equitable to reduce the basic award by 75% because of the claimant’s conduct before dismissal. No final monetary figure was recorded in the judgment, and the tribunal indicated that if a remedy hearing was needed to decide compensation because the parties could not agree what should be paid, the claimant should write to the Tribunal requesting one.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded and that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It also found a 75% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event, and reduced compensation for contributory conduct. | Upheld | — | — |
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.