Case 2306226/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Nigel Tyrell v London Borough of Lewisham — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306226/2020
- Decision date
- 17 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Carney
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms J Cook, Ms J Keene
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nigel Tyrell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNigel Tyrell brought complaints against the London Borough of Lewisham for automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure, detriment for making a protected disclosure, direct age discrimination, and unfair dismissal. The unanimous tribunal dismissed the protected-disclosure dismissal complaint, the protected-disclosure detriment complaint, and the direct age discrimination complaint, but upheld the unfair dismissal claim.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested, so it contains the dispositive outcomes rather than the tribunal's full reasoning. For remedy, the tribunal recorded that compensation for unfair dismissal should be reduced by 50% in accordance with Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142, and that any compensatory award should be further reduced by 25% to reflect the claimant's contribution to his dismissal. No monetary award is set out in the written judgment record.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal upheld unfair dismissal and directed that compensation be reduced by 50% under Polkey and a further 25% for contribution, but no monetary figure is stated in the written record. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited [1988] ICR 142
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.