Case 2305783/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Roger Smith v Cosgrove Leisure Parks UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2305783/2021
- Decision date
- 31 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Roger Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South by CVP before Employment Judge Hart, identified the correct respondent as Cosgrove Leisure Parks UK Ltd and gave an oral judgment on 31 January 2023. It held that Mr Roger Smith's claim for unfair dismissal succeeded.
In relation to remedy on the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal said the compensatory award was to be reduced on a 'just and equitable' basis to account for a 25% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed. It also found that the claimant contributed to his dismissal, and that both the basic and compensatory unfair dismissal award should be reduced by 20% for that reason. The extracted record does not state the final monetary figure.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's wrongful dismissal claim succeeded. No separate remedy figure is recorded in the extracted text for that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim succeeded. The tribunal said the compensatory award was to be reduced on a 'just and equitable' basis to reflect a 25% chance that the claimant would have been dismissed even if a fair procedure had been followed, and that the claimant had contributed to his dismissal so that the basic and compensatory award was to be reduced by 20%. No final monetary figure is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim succeeded. No separate monetary award is stated in the extracted text. | 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.