Case 2300658/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cox (the Claimant's father) For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300658/2019
- Decision date
- 7 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Cox (the Claimant's father) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 6 and 7 July 2020 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sitting alone, the tribunal held that the claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded.
On remedy, the tribunal applied a Polkey reduction of 100% to the compensatory award. It also found that there was no entitlement to a basic award because that award was extinguished by the payment of a redundancy payment.
The written record notes that the reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time by either party.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well founded. It directed a Polkey reduction of 100% to the compensatory award and said there was no entitlement to a basic award because it was extinguished by the payment of a redundancy payment, so the net monetary award was nil. | Upheld | — | £0 |
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
1 reference- Polkey reduction
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.