Case 2303081/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ben Wicken v Akita Systems Limited Held at: London South Employment Tribunals — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303081/2022
- Decision date
- 10 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ben Wicken
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London South before Employment Judge Burge, found that the Claimant Mr Ben Wicken had been constructively unfairly dismissed by the Respondent, Akita Systems Limited. The claim of constructive unfair dismissal succeeded.
In assessing remedy, the Tribunal applied a 50% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award and a 15% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code. It made no reduction to either the basic or compensatory award on the grounds of contributory fault.
By consent, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant a total of £30,692.35, comprising a basic award of £4,568, past loss of £17,846 and future loss of £4,000 (both incorporating the Polkey reduction), £275 for loss of statutory rights, and the 15% ACAS uplift applied to the sub-total of £26,689. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons were not provided in the document.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Tribunal found constructive unfair dismissal. Compensatory award subject to 50% Polkey reduction; 15% ACAS uplift applied; no contributory fault reduction. Award made by consent. | Upheld | — | £30,692 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,692
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,568
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £21,846
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Polkey reduction
- ACAS Code uplift
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.