Case 2307778/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 2307778/2020
Decision date: 11 April 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dobbie

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Dobbie, sitting alone, heard the case and gave oral reasons on 8 April 2022. The judgment records that Miss Brooke's claim of unfair dismissal was well founded and was upheld.

The tribunal said the compensatory award would be reduced by 60% under the rule in Polkey. It also found that the claimant contributed to her dismissal, so both the compensatory and basic awards would be reduced by 50% to reflect that contribution.

The judgment further states that the compensatory award would be uplifted by 10% because the respondent unreasonably failed to follow the ACAS Code on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The extracted text does not include the final monetary figures for the awards.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim. It also said the compensatory award would be reduced by 60% under Polkey, both the compensatory and basic awards would be reduced by 50% for contribution, and the compensatory award would be uplifted by 10% for unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code. No monetary figures were set out in the extracted text.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.