Case 2302230/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J Bishop v B&Q Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302230/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Bishop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that J Bishop was unfairly dismissed by B & Q Limited. The written judgment records the outcome only, with reasons having been given orally at the hearing and no written reasons included in the document provided.
The Tribunal found there was a 50% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It also found that the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015, making it just and equitable to increase the compensatory award by 10% under section 207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Tribunal further found that the claimant caused or contributed to the dismissal by blameworthy conduct. It considered it just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 75% for contributory conduct and to reduce the basic award by 75% because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It records a 50% Polkey-type chance of fair dismissal in any event, a 10% ACAS uplift to the compensatory award, a 75% contributory conduct reduction to the compensatory award, and a 75% reduction to the basic award. No monetary remedy figures are given. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.