Case 2300626/2019 · Employment Tribunal

L Mergell v Vauxhall Surgery – Dr Shah — 2021

Case reference: 2300626/2019
Decision date: 10 June 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge L Burge Representation
Venue: London South

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

L Mergell

Respondent

Vauxhall Surgery – Dr Shah

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal held that the claimant, L Mergell, was unfairly dismissed by the respondent, Vauxhall Surgery – Dr Shah. It also found that the wrongful dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded. The judgment was given by Employment Judge L Burge after a video hearing on 9 and 10 June 2021.

On remedy-related issues, the tribunal stated that there should be no Polkey reduction to the compensatory award. It also directed an uplift of 20% to the compensatory award for failure to follow the ACAS Code, and a reduction of 10% to both the basic and compensatory awards on the grounds of contributory fault.

The extracted text does not record any final quantified award. Instead, the parties were directed to inform the tribunal by 9 August 2021 if the claim had been settled and should therefore be withdrawn. If agreement could not be reached, they were to request a one-day remedy hearing.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. No final monetary award is set out in the extracted judgment text.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal said the claim of wrongful dismissal was well founded and succeeded. No final monetary award is set out in the extracted judgment text.	Upheld	—	—

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.