Case 2301870/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr John Rai v Aramark Defence Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301870/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr John Rai
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Clarke, sitting alone at London South Tribunal, found that Mr John Rai's complaint of unfair dismissal against Aramark Defence Services Limited was well-founded. The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
The tribunal recorded that the compensatory award in the eventual remedy calculation would be reduced by 20% under the principles in Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1998 ICR 142. It also recorded that there would be no adjustment for contributory conduct.
A further 10% uplift was ordered for failure to comply with the ACAS Codes. The judgment on liability did not determine the final remedy figure and instead said that remedy would be decided at a further hearing on 12 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint well-founded. Liability was decided on 15 November 2024, with remedy left to a further hearing listed for 12 December 2024. The judgment records a 20% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award, no adjustment for contributory conduct, and a 10% uplift for failure to comply with the ACAS Codes, but it does not set a final monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1998 ICR 142
- ACAS Codes
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.