Case 2305660/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kumar v John Lewis plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305660/2021
- Decision date
- 17 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Kumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent with effect from 27 July 2021. It also found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and was entitled to 12 weeks' notice pay under that separate head of claim.
The claimant was entitled to a basic and compensatory award, but the compensatory award was reduced by 25% to reflect culpable conduct contributing to his dismissal. The claimant's application during the hearing for that finding to be reconsidered was refused.
The tribunal stated that the compensation period began on 19 October 2021 and ended three months after the claimant began his current stint of employment with his new employer. It made no adjustment to the compensatory award for the period of unemployment between the end of February 2022 and the date in June 2022 after resignation from the first stint of employment with his new employer. A remedy judgment was to follow once the relevant figures were provided or agreed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed with effect from 27 July 2021. Remedy figures were to follow once relevant figures were provided or agreed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and that the respondent should pay 12 weeks' notice pay, but no monetary figure is provided. | Upheld | — | — |
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.