Case 2400254/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McGarry v Able Skip Hire Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400254/2020
- Decision date
- 10 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McGarry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone, found that Mr C McGarry's claim for unfair dismissal against Able Skip Hire Limited was well founded. It recorded that Polkey applied to the extent of 100%, and separately found that the claimant contributed to his own dismissal by his culpable and blameworthy conduct to the extent of 100%.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claim for payment in lieu of holiday accrued but not taken at the date of dismissal. It also dismissed his claim that he had not been issued with a written statement of employment particulars, finding that claim was not well founded.
The wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant without notice or payment in lieu of notice.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was well founded. It also stated that Polkey applied to the extent of 100% and that the claimant contributed to his own dismissal by culpable and blameworthy conduct to the extent of 100%. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for payment in lieu of holiday accrued but not taken at the date of dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim that the claimant was not issued with a written statement of employment particulars was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant without notice or payment in lieu of notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Polkey
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.