Case 2300481/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Markham v Asda Stores Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300481/2020
- Decision date
- 7 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms J Forecast, Ms C Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Markham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London South (Croydon) from 4-7 March 2024, unanimously found that the claimant, Mr Paul Markham, was unfairly dismissed by Asda Stores Limited for a reason falling within section 100(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which concerns dismissals connected with health and safety activities carried out by an employee designated to deal with such matters.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant compensation totalling £5,656.70 net. This comprised a basic award of £2,926.50, reduced by 50% under section 122(2) ERA, and a compensatory award of £2,727.20, reduced by 33.3% under section 123(6) ERA. The judgment was given orally at the hearing and the written record does not set out the reasons; written reasons would only follow on request within 14 days.
Because the available text is the written record of judgment only and not the reasons, the underlying factual findings and the specific conduct giving rise to the statutory reductions are not described in the document extracted.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal found unfair under s.100(1)(b) ERA 1996 (health and safety). Basic award reduced by 50% under s.122(2) ERA; compensatory award reduced by 33.3% under s.123(6) ERA. | Upheld | — | £5,657 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,657
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,927
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,727
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 100(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 122(2) ERA 1996
- section 123(6) ERA 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.