Case 2400061/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Kenyon v Abbey Solicitors Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400061/2021
- Decision date
- 18 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Kenyon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs M Kenyon was procedurally unfairly dismissed by Abbey Solicitors Limited under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment does not record a separate reasoned finding on any other claim type; the only substantive liability finding was unfair dismissal.
On remedy, the tribunal applied Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited and found it was 100% inevitable that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed within two weeks of the date of dismissal. It therefore reduced any basic award or compensatory award by 100% for contributory fault and recorded a nil award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was procedurally unfairly dismissed pursuant to sections 95 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that, under Polkey, it was 100% inevitable she would have been fairly dismissed within two weeks of the dismissal date, and that any basic or compensatory award was reduced by 100% for contributory fault, producing a nil award. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
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.