Case 2300477/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I. Abiodun v Waltham Estate Resident Management Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300477/2019
- Decision date
- 10 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I. Abiodun
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 January 2023 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, the tribunal held that Mr I. Abiodun's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. The written record identifies the respondent as Waltham Estate Resident Management Limited and records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not cause or contribute to his dismissal by reason of culpable conduct. It also found that no deduction was appropriate on Polkey grounds, referring to the principle in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd.
The tribunal further found that section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 applied to the proceedings, that a relevant code of practice applied, and that the respondent failed to comply with that code in an unreasonable way. On that basis, the tribunal said it would be just and equitable to increase any award made to the claimant by 25%. The written record does not set out a monetary total or any separate award components.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was well founded. It also found he did not cause or contribute to his dismissal by culpable conduct, that no Polkey reduction was appropriate, and that section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 applied so any award should be increased by 25%. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.