Case 2301920/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs E L Paraskos v East Sussex County Council — 2018

Case reference: 2301920/2017
Decision date: 19 September 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge John Crosfill

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs E L Paraskos

Respondent

East Sussex County Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal, sitting at London South (Ashford) on 27, 28 and 29 June 2018 before Employment Judge John Crosfill, held that Mrs E L Paraskos’s unfair dismissal claim against East Sussex County Council was well founded. The judgment records that the decision was given orally and that full written reasons would follow if requested.

On liability, the tribunal found that the dismissal fell within Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It also found it would be just and equitable to reduce the basic award by 50% under section 122(2) of the Act.

For compensation, the tribunal found there was a 50% chance that, had the respondent followed a fair procedure, the claimant would have been dismissed in any event. It stated that this finding would be taken into account in any compensatory award under section 123(1).

The tribunal further found that the claimant’s conduct caused or contributed to her dismissal and that it would be just and equitable to reduce any award by 50% under section 123(6). The decision was a liability judgment only, and the matter was to be listed for a remedy hearing with a three-hour estimate.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Liability only. The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well founded, reduced the basic award by 50% under section 122(2), found a 50% chance the claimant would have been dismissed in any event for compensatory purposes under section 123(1), and found conduct causation/contributory fault justifying a 50% reduction under section 123(6). A remedy hearing was to be listed; no final monetary award was made in this decision.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

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.